Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) UJAGAR Singh has challenged his conviction under Sections 466 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, whereunder, he stands sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 200, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the first mentioned offence and no separate sentence was imposed for the second mentioned offence. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and his appeal to the Sessions Judge remained abortive.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that one Harmel Kaur complained against her husband that he had committed bigamy by marrying a second time a woman named Dhan Kaur. As a part of preliminary evidence, she produced Hazara Singh and Chand Singh as witnesses before Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gidderbaha. The statements were recorded on 20th October, 1973 and 8th November, 1973 respectively, on the dictation of Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, to the Petitioner Ujagar Singh, who was then working as a Reader in that Court. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner incorporated words at the end of those statements to the effect that one Surjit Singh had seen the entire occurrence with his own eyes. It is immaterial as to what fate that complaint ultimately met but the matter came to light of the said Magistrate. He made a reference to the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. After a preliminary inquiry was held against the Petitioner, a case was registered against him. On completion of the investigation, the police report was put in, the accused was charged and convicted as aforesaid. Though the prosecution examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses yet the most important and the material one was Shri Dina Nath (P.W. 3), Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class who stated in categoric terms that the inserted writings concededly being in the hands of the accused, were never dictated by him. It was also stated by him that had those assertions been at his instance at the close of the evidence on suggestion by the counsel for the parties, he would have initialled them. That apart, other evidence was also examined to connect the accused with the crime. The accused did not deny the writing and the assertion but twisted the pivot of the case of the prosecution by saying that the insertions had been made at the instance of the Judicial Magistrate and not on his own. The only question which had to be determined was whether the aforesaid insertions made in the statements of Hazara Singh and Chand Singh were made on the dictation of Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, or were added later by the accused -Petitioner. It is apparent to the naked eye that the main body of the statement with regard to Hazara Singh, Exhibit P.E., dated 20th October, 1973 is written by a different pen and ink than the insertion. It is patent that the insertion is abbreviated because the space was smaller. It is to the effect "Surjit Singh also saw the occurrence." The later statement Exhibit P.A. of Chand Singh, dated 8th November, 1973 is still in a different ink and the insertion in this instance was longer because of availability of space. It is to the effect that "Surjit Singh of Giddarbaha had seen the whole occurrence with his own eyes". The ink and pen of the later insertion is different than the body of the statement. However, both the insertions are in the same ink and with the same pen. It is obvious therefrom that these insertions came about at one and the same time whereas the statements of the witnesses were recorded at different times. There is no possibility of the insertions happening at the time when Hazara Singh's statement was recorded but the need for it may have arisen after the statement of Chand Singh was recorded as it is later in time. In view of the categoric statement of Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, there is no scope to doubt that the last lines in the aforesaid two statements had been inserted by the accused -Petitioner after the said Magistrate had signed the two statements as part of the record of a judicial proceeding prepared by him. Two Courts have believed, and rightly so, Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, and no infirmity could be found in his statement in this Court as well.
(3.) IT was then contended that there was a legal bar to the trial and the conviction arising therefrom has to be quashed. It was contended that the conviction under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, cannot sustain as it is an offence which falls under Section 195(i)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that offence could only be tried if a complaint in writing had been made by the Court when such offence was alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in the Court. Carrying the argument further, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the offence under Section 466, Indian Penal Code, was also an offence described in Section 463 Indian Penal Code and as such that offence also could not be tried except on the complaint in writing of the Court when the offence was committed in respect of a document prepared by the Court in judicial proceedings. In support thereof, a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Kamla Prasad Singh v. Hari Nath Singh and Anr. : AIR 1968 S.C. 19, was cited to contend that at least the offence under Section 218 Indian Penal Code, could not be taken cognizance of except on a complaint because the offence according to the learned Counsel was within the ambit of Section 193, Indian Penal Code and not under Section 218, Indian Penal Code.;