HULAS CHAND BAID Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused was put on his trial under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The case against him is that he went to the complainant's gaddi on some business and subsequently he met the complainant with a Bhatia. The Bhatia then produced a hundred rupee note and said that he could prepare notes like that. On the following day, the Bhatia made a hundred rupee note in the presence of the complainant and the accused, and the complainant was satisfied that the Bhatia was a man who could double notes. Then an arrangement was come to under which the Bhatia, the complainant, and the accused were to get a share each in the profits of the doubled notes in a certain proportion, the complainant taking the biggest share, presumably because he was the man who was to supply genuine thousand rupee notes for the purpose. Then, on the next day, the 15 February, the complainant borrowed a thousand rupee note and went with the accused to the Bhatia, and the Bhatiamade one forged note (apparently unnumbered) by some chemical process and gave 21 unfinished notes to the accused to keep. The complainant was then asked to bring 21 different thousand rupee notes, so that these 21 unfinished notes could be completed by having the numbers reproduced on them from the genuine notes. The story then is that the complainant could only raise eight thousand rupee notes and that thereupon they met at the accused's gaddi in the evening. The Bhatia came there with some chemicals and various processes were performed and suddenly aiparently the whole of the notes, genuine notes and other notes, got burnt. As a matter of fact, it appears that the eight thousand rupee notes somehow must have been extracted from the bundle as they were subsequently cashed in the Currency Office. The complainant, however, lost this money and the Bhatia disappeared. The complainant complained to the police and the accused has been put on his trial and sentenced as I have said. The conviction has been under Section 420 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Now the evidence against the present accused consists simply of the evidence of the complainant himself; and it is urged on accused's behalf that this is insufficient to warrant a conviction. For the appellant it is argued, to begin with, that the charge was under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and that the provisions of Section 288, Criminal P. C., do not extend to justify a conviction without any charge being framed for abetment of an offence under Section 420 instead of Section 420 itself. For the Crown, it is urged, that in the present case the defect, if any, in the charge is immaterial, because the accused fully knew before the charge was framed the case he had got to meet; and it is also urged that there might equally well be a conviction under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. I am of opinion that it was necessary to frame a charge of abetment, if that was the charge on which the man was tried and convicted. But I do not base the decision I am about to give on that alone.