Skip to content


Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in47Ind.Cas.871
AppellantMohesh Chandra Chaudhury
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Mir Ekrar Ali
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 192, 193,465, 109 - forgery--false evidence, fabrication of. - .....evidence (sections 192, 193, indian penal code). as was done in the case of empress v. mir ekrar ali 6 c. 282 : 3 ind. dec. (n.s.) 313, we convict the appellants under section 193 and sections 193-109 respectively. the term of imprisonment already undergone by nosha mia is, in our opinion, sufficient. we accordingly reduce the sentence in his case to the period of imprisonment already undegone, and direct that he be released.3. in the case of mohesh chandra chaudhury we think that the period of imprisonment which he has already undergone (i.e., nearly two months) is sufficient imprisonment, and we accordingly reduce the term of imprisonment in his case to that period, but we sentence him in addition to a fine of rs. 50, and, in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment.
Judgment:

1. These are two appeals by Nosha Mia and Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury who were convicted of forgery and abetment of forgery respectively, and sentenced, Nosha Mia to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The case is a somewhat peculiar one. It appears that Nosha Mia was proposing to sell some property to another pen-on of the same name. A Kobala was written out by Nosha Mia--the appellant--on a stamp paper of Rs. 5. The Kobala was to have been executed sometime in May 1914 and bore the date 23rd May written by the appellant Nosha Mia. The sale having fallen through, it became necessary to apply to the Collector for a refund of the stamp duty. The appellant Nosha Mia took advice with regard to this and he was told that no refund would be made after two months. The other appellant Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury, who is a Pleader's clerk of some three years' standing, gave him this advice, and also told him that he might alter the date in the document from 23rd May to 23rd September, which would bring the application for the refund within the two months. This was quite unnecessary on their part inasmuch as the period was not two months but six months. The application for the refund would, therefore, have been within six months from the date 23rd May, inserted in the document. Upon this they were charged with forgery and abetment of forgery and found guilty as above stated.

2. The question then arises what was the offence committed. There was undoubtedly a dishonest and fraudulent intention, for the appellants clearly intended to cheat the Government, being unaware that they could, in fact, obtain their object honestly. At the same time it may be argued with some show of reason that what they did does not fall within the definition of forgery contained in Section 464, Indian Penal Code. So far as the document was an unexecuted Kobala, the appellant Nosha Mia had authority to alter it as it was his own document. But for the purposes of this case, the document must he regarded rather as an used or spoilt stamp paper, on which the appellants were applying for a refund. It is, however, unnecessary to decide this point, as they were clearly guilty of fabricating, and abetting the fabrication of, false evidence (Sections 192, 193, Indian Penal Code). As was done in the case of Empress v. Mir Ekrar Ali 6 C. 282 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 313, we convict the appellants under Section 193 and Sections 193-109 respectively. The term of imprisonment already undergone by Nosha Mia is, in our opinion, sufficient. We accordingly reduce the sentence in his case to the period of imprisonment already undegone, and direct that he be released.

3. In the case of Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury we think that the period of imprisonment which he has already undergone (i.e., nearly two months) is sufficient imprisonment, and we accordingly reduce the term of imprisonment in his case to that period, but we sentence him in addition to a fine of Rs. 50, and, in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment.


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