B.K. Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Srivastava for the accused No. 1 -the present revisionist; Sri V.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the complainant -present opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P., opposite party No. 1 and also perused the record. The accused No. 2, present opposite party No. 3 Prem Chand had died during the pendency of this revision.
(2.) A criminal complaint was filed by Bhagwati Prasad present opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Daya Shanker (accused No. 1 -present revisionist) (hereinafter referred to as the accused -revisionist) and Prem Chand Agrawal, accused No. 2 present opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) for the offences Under Sections 465, 467 and 471, I.P.C. with the allegations that he had purchased a 7 years National Saving Certificate (National Defence Certificate) for a sum of Rs. 1,000 in which he gave his address as M/s Bansal Traders, Hathras because he worked at that time at the firm Bansal Traders, Hathras; that the N.S.C. (N.D.C.) was given by him before the Regional Food Controller (Senior Marketing Inspector, Hathras) by way of security ; that when he tried to take back the N.S.C. (N.D.C.) from the office of Senior Marketing Inspector, he learnt that it has been taken back by the accused -revisionist whereupon he met him (the accused -revisionist) and asked him to return the same on which he admitted taking the N.S.C. from the office of the Senior Marketing Inspector but claimed that at that time it was in the custody of the postal authorities; that on enquiry being made by him, he learnt that its payment was made by the then Sub -Postmaster of Sub -Post Office Nayaganj, Hathras to the accused -revisionist at the identification of accused No. 2. It was also alleged by the complainant that both these accused were inter -related. It was further claimed by him that accused -revisionist forged his signatures (i.e., signatures of the complainant) on the N.S.C. impersonating himself as him (the complainant) ; that then he met the postal authorities and made a complaint to the Post Master General and others but as no action had been taken in that matter to his Knowledge; he preferred the criminal complaint. It was claimed by the complainant in the complaint that the above acts were done by the accused persons with intention to defraud and injure him and that they even used the same and obtained money from the post office; that their intention also was to fabricate other documents and take proceedings setting up these signatures as his signatures. Consequently, he prayed that both these accused be summoned for the offences Under Sections 416, 465, 467 and 471, I.P.C. The complaint was registered as case No. 87 of 1979 but later on numbered as 394 of 1982.
(3.) ON the basis of the statements recorded Under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate summoned both the accused. However, after hearing the counsel for the parties on charge, he discharged both the accused persons by his order dated 18.2.1983 Under Section 245, Code of Criminal Procedure The complainant Bhagwati Prasad had examined himself as P.W. 2 and narrated the facts as narrated in his complaint. He also examined T.N. Dubey, Assistant Post Master, Hathras as P.W. 1, Sri T.N. Dubey had brought the original N.D.C. and the application on which it was issued and filed before the Magistrate its photo copy and also filed the original, statements of the complainant and Prem Chand accused No. 2 given in the enquiry made on the complaint of the complainam. It may be mentioned here that Prem Chand stated in his statement in that enquiry that the accused -revisionist brought to him a bond and told him that he wanted to take this bond encashed from the post office but the postal authorities did not know him and so he will have difficulty ; that he (the accused -revisionist) told him that this bond is of Bhagwati Prasad; that he (the accused -revisionist) was accompanied by another person whom he (Prem Chand accused No. 2) did not know from before and introduced that third person to him (i.e., to Prem Chand accused No. 2) as that Bhagwati Prasad and then they went to the post office ; that at the instance of the accused -revisionist, he (Prem Chand accused No. 2} identified (as a witness) the signatures made by that 3rd person ; that the postal clerk demanded identification of a person known to the post office, whereupon he took K. K. Bansal, Sub -Post Master of Nayaganj, Hathras and got the attestation done by him (K. K. Bansal) and the payment was then made by the post office to that 3rd person. In that statement, Prem Chand accused No. 2 claimed that he was innocent and has been cheated by Daya Shanker accused -revisionist by falsely representing that 3rd person as Bhagwati Prasad. He had further stated before the postal authorities that since he had made the attestation, he assumed responsibility for the wrong payment and was willing to make payment of the amount and he actually deposited the amount of Rs. 1,480 (equivalent to the amount paid by the post office) in the bank. In his statement on oath before the Magistrate, the complainant had claimed that the signatures made on the National Defence Certificate were of the accused -revisionist Daya Shanker Agrawal. The complainant Bhagwati Prasad also filed and proved in his evidence a memo from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Aligarh, narrating the facts that the N.D.C. in question was discharged at Hathras on 26.08.1978 but the payment was made to a person other than the real holder with interest accrued thereon which came to Rs. 480, that the value of the N.D.C. and the interest paid was, however, recovered from the identifier and credited at Hathras (sub -office) and by this letter, sanction had been accorded for payment of this amount to Bhagwati Prasad Agrawal, the complainant (present Opposite Party No. 2). The statement on oath given by the complainant before the learned Magistrate indicated that at that time he had received payment of the amount from the post office.;