PRADEEP KUMAR,J - (1.) The revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.1.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. case no. 1340/2004 and T.R. no. 1457 of 2007, by which judgment he found the petitioner, Balram Mandal guilty under Sections 466/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S. I. for 2 years under all the three sections. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and against the judgment in appeal passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., I, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2007 dated 24th May, 2007 by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I for 2 years. However, he acquitted the petitioner under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main point in revision is that there is no evidence that the petitioner was knowing that the order of recall which he is representing before the police was a forged document and as such the finding of conviction under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by Sri Alok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad stating therein that in G.R. Case No. 434 of 1996 accused, Balram Mandal was convicted and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year on 25.5.93. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 77/93 on 9.7.2002, the appellate court confirmed the judgment of the lower court and the bail bond of accused was cancelled, accordingly, on 5.9.2002 non -bailable warrant was issued against the accused. When, the accused did not turn up then processes under Sections 82/83 were issued on 12.12.2002. Even then, when the accused did not turn up then processes were issued through S.P, Dhanbad on 7.1.2004. Suddenly, on 19.3.2004 the police came to the Court and returned the processes issued by the Court since recall order was sent by the Court. The informant -Judicial Magistrate was astonished at the said recall order of the processes was not issued by the Court nor it was signed by him and still both were forged. It was written that since records have been sent to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI, hence the processes under Sections 82 -83 Cr. P. C. including warrant of arrest have been recalled. It was alleged that the informant in conspiracy with unknown persons had forged this recall order and produced the same at Katras Police Station due to which the processes were returned. On the basis of the said F.I.R. by the Judicial Magistrate the case under Sections 419 / 420 / 464 / 468 / 471 / 120B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.
(3.) IT is also further submitted that during trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and P.W.4 -the informant proved his F.I.R. as also he proved the recall slip which he claimed was not signed by him. P.W.1, Sriram Mandal gave a detailed evidence and stated that when the accused was called by Dy. S.P., went to him and stated that the recall order was given to him by the Junior Advocate of his Senior, Chunnu Babu and there is no evidence that the accused had any knowledge that the document was forged and hence his conviction is bad and fit to be set aside.;