RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution granted by the Allahabad High Court from its judgment dated March 7, 1969 convicting the three appellants for an offence under S. 109 read with S. 465, I.P.C.

(2.) The three appellants Raghunath Prasad, Viswanath and Pyarelal were tried for offences under, inter alia, Ss. 114/465, 114/467, 114/468, I.P.C. and S. 82 (d) of the Indian Registration Act. Raghunath Prasad was in addition tried for an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. The Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur acquitted them of the offences under the Penal Code on the ground that it was not safe to convict them on the sole testimony of the complainant Smt. Sukh Devi. So far as the offences under S. 82 (d) of the Registration Act is concerned there was the additional ground for acquittal, namely, absence of sanction of the registration authorities for their prosecution under S. 82 of that Act. The necessary permission having not been obtained, the prosecution failed on this ground as well. This view was taken on the basis of Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh, ILR 53 All 804 (SB).

(3.) On appeal by the complainant Smt. Sukh Devi the High Court went into the evidence and in a well-considered judgment came to the conclusion that the offence under S. 109 read with S. 465, I.P.C. was fully established and sentenced Raghunath Prasad to rigorous imprisonment for one year and Viswanath and Pyarelal to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The point on which the High Court granted certificate of fitness related to the requirement of the complaint by the court as contemplated by S. 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. for the appellants' prosecution. In order to appreciate the question arising for our determination we may briefly state the facts giving rise to the appellants' prosecution.