Decided on September 03,1963



N.M.MIABHOY - (1.) This reference is made under sec. 438 Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Second Extra Additional Sessions Judge Surat requesting this Court to quash under sec. 215 Criminal Procedure Code an order made by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Navsari committing the three opponents (1) Bhikbubhai Ranchhodji Desai (2) Bai Padmavati Dayaramdas and (3) Lallubhai Laxmidas to take their trial for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The reference came up for hearing before Bhagwati J. on 11th of July 1963. The learned Judge felt that the reference raised an important point of law and therefore referred the same for decision to a Division Bench.
(2.) The facts are as follows: Survey No 205 situated in the village Chokhad Navsari Taluka belongs to a temple known as the Radha-Krishna Pancha Pipla Temple situated in the village Dhaman. That temple has been declared to be a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 One Thakordas was the mahant of the temple. One Dayaramdas managed the temple and its properties as the constituted attorney of mahant Thakordas. Thakordas made a gift of survey No. 205 to Bai Padmavati respondent No. 2. The prosecution alleges that this gift was made to circumvent the trust proceedings. Padmavati agreed to sell this survey No. 205 to Lallubhai Laxmidas respondent No. 3. She signed a document written on a stamp paper alleged to have been issued on 15th of January 1954 and bearing the same date. That document is Exhibit 83 in the proceedings This document is a contract of sale by which respondent No. 2 agreed to sell survey No. 205 to respondent No. 3. This document was produced before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal Navsari in a proceeding under sec 32d of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 That proceeding terminated sometime thereafter. On 20 of June 1961 one Dahyabhai Haribhai of Dhaman village filed a first information before P. S. I. Navsari in which he alleged that the document Exhibit 83 was a forgery. The allegation was that the stamp paper on which the contract of sale was written was not issued on 15 as it purported to have been done but that the stamp paper was issued sometime between 10th of March 1955 and 25th of September 1959 that a false endorsement was got made on the stamp paper that it was issued on 15th January 1954; that a false entry was made in the stamp register that the stamp was issued on 15th of January 1954 although in fact no such stamp paper was issued on that day that the contract for sale was also written sometime between 10th of March 1955 and 25th of September 1959 and that although it was signed during the aforesaid period it was actually antedated by inserting the date of 15th of January 1954
(3.) The police investigated into these allegations and after the investigation was over sent a chargesheet in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class aforesaid. In the charge-sheet the police alleged that respondent No. 2 had without authority passed a false contract of sale purporting to bear the date 15 of January 1954 with the intention of cheating the temple to which survey No. 205 belonged. It also alleged that a false endorsement had been made on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1-8-0 issued by the India Security Press at Nasik in 1955 by antedating the same and that respondent No. 1 had got a false entry No. 2330 made in the stamp register purporting to have been made on 15th of January 1954 and that he had got an entry made that that stamp paper was sold to respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 3 had got a writing written on that stamp paper and respondent No. 2 had executed the false contract of sale thereon and that thereby the three respondents had committed the offences punishable under sections 420 465 468 471 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and that each of them should be convicted for the commission of those offences.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.