Queen-Empress v. Umrao Lal

Aikman, J.:— In this case, one Umrao Lal, a village patwari, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur of having forged a register kept by him in his capacity of patwari. He has also been convicted under section 471, Indian Penal Code, of having used as genuine this forged document. It appears that a zamindar served a tenant with notice of ejectment under section 36 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act. The tenant filed an application before an Assistant Collector contesting his liability to be ejected. The main issue in the case was, whether or not the tenant had been in occupation of the land continuously for a period of twelve years so as to acquire a right of occupancy in it. The appellant, Umrao Lal, was called as a witness by the tenant to give evidence supporting the defence set up by him. In his evidence he stated “his tenure is twelve years.” It appears that when he gave this evidence he had before him the village field book for 1306 F. An inspection of the entry in that boob shows beyond any doubt that what was originally written was that the period of the tenant's cultivation was ten years, and that this entry has subsequently been tampered with so as to make it appear that the term of the tenant's cultivation was twelve years. The learned Judge and one of the two assessors concurred in finding it proved that the patwari, Umrao Lal, had himself tampered with the register and made the alteration in the tenant's favour. After going through the record and listening to all that can be urged by the learned vakil who appears in support of the appeal, I see no reason to differ from this finding. The learned Judge also found his guilty of using this forged document as genuine, and convicted him under section 471, Indian Penal Code. Section 471 provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses any document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had for get such document. The concluding words of this section lead me to believe that it is directed against some person other than a person proved to be the actual forger. The section is useful as an alternative charge, when it is not certain whether the accused person is himself the forger of a document or his merely used it as genuine. But I cannot recall a case in which the forger has been punished both for forging a document and for using it as genuine. The learned Judge has convicted the appellant under both sections, and has imposed an aggregate punishment of five years' rigorous imprisonment. When an accused person is convicted of two different offences, separate punishment for each offence ought to be awarded. If necessary, the punishments may be made to run concurrently. For the reasons set forth above I am of opinion that the conviction under section 471 should not stand. I assume that the punishment for each offence was years' imprisonment. I set aside the conviction under section 471. I sustain the conviction under section 466, and reduce the term of imprisonment to two and half years.