Skip to content


Baharuddy Sikdar Vs. the King-emperor (on the Complaint of Sheikh Easin) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Cal986
AppellantBaharuddy Sikdar
RespondentThe King-emperor (on the Complaint of Sheikh Easin)
Excerpt:
- .....this is an appeal under section 476-b of the code of criminal procedure against an order of the learned sessions judge of bakarganj, dated the 24th of september, 1923, in which he made a complaint to the district magistrate of an offence under section 193 of the indian penal code, and any other appropriate sections, alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner baharuddy sikdar in relation to a trial before the assistant sessions judge of bakarganj. these offences are said to have been committed in respect of certain documents which were filed by the defence in the trial before the assistant sessions judge. they are a kabuliat, a mortgage-bond and some other documents.2. various grounds have been urged before us for holding that the order of the learned sessions judge was.....
Judgment:

Panton, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Bakarganj, dated the 24th of September, 1923, in which he made a complaint to the District Magistrate of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and any other appropriate sections, alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner Baharuddy Sikdar in relation to a trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bakarganj. These offences are said to have been committed in respect of certain documents which were filed by the defence in the trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge. They are a kabuliat, a mortgage-bond and some other documents.

2. Various grounds have been urged before us for holding that the order of the learned Sessions Judge was not in accordance with law. It is, however, unnecessary to go into all the points raised by the learned Vakil for the appellant because we think that the appeal must succeed upon one single ground and that is that there is no ground for supposing that Baharuddy committed any offence of the nature referred to in Section 476 in or in relation to a proceeding in any Court. It may possibly be the case, but as to this we express no opinion, that Baharuddy forged these documents, but there is nothing at present before us nor was there anything before the learned Judge, so far as I can see to suggest that he did so for the purpose of using them in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, nor is there anything to show that it was he who used these documents in that Court. In these circumstances we think that the appeal must succeed and that the order of the learned Sessions Judge must be sot aside and his complaint withdrawn.

Greaves, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //