EMPEROR Vs. LAKSHMAN TOTARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case we are of opinion that the conviction and sentence must be reversed and set aside. There are points in the case which tell very strongly against the accused. All these points have not, in our opinion, been satisfactorily cleared up. There are other points in the case, however, which create so strong and reasonable a doubt as makes it, in our opinion, impossible to uphold the conviction.

(2.) The particular facts which are necessary to be mentioned as alleged by the prosecution, are that, on the 23rd of July 1913, the complainant, Supdu, an old man, purchased two stamp-papers of the value of Rs. 6 and 4 respectively with the object of executing a mortgage of one of his fields to a man called Dagdu for a sum of Rs. 1000. He says that he was in need of the money to pay a Savkar Patil to whom, it appears, Dagdu himself was also indebted. Having procured the stamp-papers, the complainant, Supdu, contends that he took them to Waman, the Kulkarni of the village, with the object of getting the mortgage deed drafted, at any rate, to the extent of obtaining the boundaries of the land, which he proposed to mortgage, from the Kulkarni. The Kulkarni declined to write the deed until the mortgagee was brought before him. It is part of the complainant s case that the Kulkarni desired to write the deed in order to obtain the writing fee. Supdu says that he then went in quest of Dagdu who lives in the village of Mamoorabad, some distance away from Neri. Dagdu, according to Supdu, was unwell and refused to return with him and when Supdu returned five days later, on the 28th of July 1913, he says that he learnt that Waman had given the blank papers to Laxman Totaram. Two days later Supdu says that he was informed that Laxman Totaram had forged a sale-deed of 1/3rd of Survey No. 57, a land belonging to Supdu in his (Laxman Totaram s) own favour. It appears that, on the 28th of July 1913, Laxman Totaram, the accused, did present such a deed attested by four witnesses and written by one Nathu Laxman purporting to be signed by the line or mark of the complainant, Supdu, for registration at the Sub-Registrar s office at Jamner. As the executant, Supdu, was not there, the Registrar refused to register. Subsequently, on the 18th of August 1913, Supdu filed a complaint against both Waman and Laxman Totaram in respect of the same deed which had thus been presented for registration. This complaint was verified on the 20th of August 1913. On the same day the accused Laxman Totaram applied to the Registrar for notice calling upon the complainant, Supdu, to appear and acknowledge the execution of the deed. This notice was served on Supdu but he did not comply with it. Accordingly, on the 30th August 1913, the Sub-Registrar finally declined to register and, according to a statement made by the accused before the Magistrate, Mr. Joglekar, the impugned deed was returned to him by Post. Now the trial upon the complaint made on the 20th August by Supdu was referred in the first instance by Mr. Kelkar, the Magistrate to whom the complaint was presented, to a Mamlatdar called Mr. Raoji for preliminary investigation. This investigation appears to have gone on for some time between the 20th and 30th of August. It is a curious circumstance that although the inquiry was into the alleged forgery of this sale-deed, the deed itself was not before the inquiring officer. He appears to have procured the particulars of it, the names of the writer and attesting witnesses, from the Registration Office and it is thus clear that the deed was with the Registrar while the inquiry was in progress. Afterwards by the order of his superior officer, Mr. Kelkar, the Mamlatdar, Mr. Raoji, obtained the deed probably, though this is not appa rent from his own report, from the accused himself and forwarded it to Mr. Kelkar. That Magistrate, after duly considering the preliminary inquiry made by the Mamlatdar, Mr. Raoji, dismissed the complaint under Section 203, that is to say, the conclusion of both these officers was that there was not even a prima facie case against the accused, Laxman Totaram. The Sessions Judge, probably Mr. Clements, directed further inquiry under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This inquiry was entrusted to another Magistrate, Mr. Joglekar, who took it up sometime in March 1914 and appears to have gone very thoroughly into the matter. Many witnesses were examined before him and he wrote an elaborate judgment ending with the discharge of the accused persons, Waman and Laxman Totaram. It is to be borne in mind that up to this time both these men were charged equally by the complainant, Supdu, with the forging of this sale-deed. On the 27th of November 1914, the Sessions Judge (Mr. Dutt) this time, we believe, (though this is not apparent on the record) acting under Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed Mr. Joglekar to commit the accused person, Laxman Totaram, to the Sessions. He accepted the Magistrate s conclusion with regard to the other accused Waman.

(3.) Now the statement of Waman throughout had been that Supdu s story about giving him the two blank stamp-papers in order to write the mortgage deed upon them was absolutely false, and this story, as we have now shown, appears to have been, accepted by three inquiring Magistrates and the Sessions Judge himself. But if that story is true, it strikes at the foundation of the whole case, and that is one point which, we think, tells very strongly in favour of the accused, Laxman Totaram. If we are correct in saying that it was Mr. Dutt himself who directed Mr. Joglekar to commit Laxman Totaram for trial, then it is clear that the trial conducted before that learned Judge would have been, from the prisoner s point of view, open to very serious exception. We have not the learned Judge s order under Section 436, but we presume that he must have entirely rejected the whole of Mr. Joglekar s reasoning and appreciation of the evidence so far as that went in favour of the accused, Laxman Totaram.