- (1.) THIS is an appeal by Lila against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Alwar, dated the 14th of April, 1952,by which the appellant was convicted under sec. 477 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default two month's further R. I.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the 18th of April, 1951, the complainant, Roshan, demanded his money from Lila and Lila thereupon asked the complainant to produce his book of account. THE complainant then went to his house and brought his book of account in which Lila's account was entered. Ram Kumar, who was sitting there, opened the book of account in order to show it to Lila. But Lila snatched the book and took out his own account. He perused it for some time and then tore out the adhesive stamp on which his signatures were subscribed and then ran away. THE complainant went to Kishengarh for filing a suit against the accused and he was advised to initiate criminal proceedings. He, therefore, filed a complaint on the 20th of April, 1951, in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who transferred it to the file of the Extra Magistrate, Tijara. THE case was finally Committed to the court of Session after inquiry and the trial resulted in the conviction of the accused Lila. The defence of the accused was that he did not tamper with the book of account of the complainant and as he had squared up the account the complainant himself tore out the adhesive stamp bearing his signatures and filed a complaint against him on account of enmity. The learned Sessions Judge believed the statement of the complainant, Roshan, and his witnesses and held that the accused dishonestly tampered with Ex. P-l and he was therefore, guilty of an offence under sec. 477 I. P. C. The learned counsel of the appellant has at first urged that the trial court was wrong in considering the evidence of Subra and Kalu, P. Ws. 2 and 3, because both these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution at the trial. They were merely produced for the cross-examination of the accused. As there was no examination-in-chief by the party producing the witnesses there could be no cross-examination and the evidence of both these witnesses should, therefore, have been ignored. Reliance is placed on Veeral Koravan vs. Emperor (1) and Emperor vs. Kasam Ali Mirza Ali (2 ). The learned counsel of the appellant is right in saying that the evidence of both Subia and Kalu, when these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, cannot be read on behalf of the prosecution. Sec. 138 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that "witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling them so desires) re-examined". There is no provision in the Evidence Act for producing witnesses for cross-examination only without being first examined-in-chief. The step adopted by the prosecution in this case of tendering both these witnesses merely for the cross-examination of the accused without first examining them is not in accordance with law. The evidence of Subra and Kalu, therefore, cannot be considered at all against the accused. Next it is urged by the learned counsel of the accused that Ram Kumar is a chance witness and the statement of the complainant, Roshan, is not in full agreement of the facts stated by him in his complaint. Special emphasis is laid on the fact that in the complaint no mention was made about the presence of Ram Kumar or other witnesses and also about Ram Kumar opening the bahi himself. It may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of both Roshan and Ram Kumar It is true that in the complaint the presence of Ram Kumar and the part played by him in the occurrence was not specified. But the complainant in his statement which was recorded on the complaint mentioned that Ram Kumar, Subra and Kalu were present at the time of the occurrence. These witnesses were also produced by the complainant on the day on which he was examined. The facts which have been mentioned by the complainant at the trial were stated by him at the very outset. This argument of the learned counsel, therefore, does not contain much force. Ram Kumar may have been a chance witness but that alone is not enough to discard his evidence outright. The learned counsel has also argued that even though the fact of removing the adhesive stamp from the khata Ex. P-l is held proved, no offence under sec. 477 can be made out against the accused as no dishonest intention on the part of the accused has been proved. It may be observed that the accused has denied his liability relating to Ex. P-l on the ground of payment and his case is that the stamp was removed by the complainant himself because of the payment. It is evident under these circumstances that the accused desired to escape his liability relating to Ex. P-l by removing adhesive stamp on which he had subscribed his own signatures. The case of the complainant was that the liability relating to Ex P-l had not been wiped out and it had been subsisting on the date of the occurrence. The action of the accused under these circumstances cannot be considered to be otherwise than dishonest. Lastly, it is also urged that the sentence passed by the trial court is excessive and should be reduced. Stress is laid on the amount of Ex. P-1. It may be noted that cases relating to tampering with the evidence of offences against justice are considered to be very severe. The amount entered in the document is not very material in such cases. In view of the seriousness of the offence the punishment awarded cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to it and shall be sent to jail to undergo his remaining portion of sentence. .;