This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Patna, under sec. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The accused in this case is one Sri Narain Prasad. He has been charged with offences under secs. 420, 466, 468, 471 and 419, I.P.C The trial was conducted with the assistance of a jury. The jury by a majority of four to one found the accused worthy of acquittal, that is to say, they found him not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge has differed so much from the verdict of the jury that he has considered it necessary for the requirements of justice to refer the case to us.

The facts of the case are very simple. The accused person has for some time past been employed as an amin in the Behar Survey Department. In September last he made the acquaintance of the complainant, Sheo Persad Gowala, when he went to visit the place of business of Ganesh Mistry, the master of the complainant (who was a photographer), for the purpose of having his likeness taken. On that occasion he entered into conversation with Sheo Persad, observed that his work was very laborious and advised him to seek an appointment in the Survey Department, in which he represented himself to be an Inspector. He also offered to help him to obtain an appointment in that department similar to his own. On the 22nd September last, a letter, admittedly sent by the accused, reached Sheo Persad; and in it was stated that the accused had already paid the Peshkar Saheb Rs. 4 “for necessary expenses.” The accused also said in the letter that he would call upon the complainant in a few days. The promised visit was subsequently made; and the necessity for paying Rs. 5 Was explained to Sheo Persad. The money was obtained by Sheo Persad from his master Ganesh and paid to the accused. Two or three days later a printed pamphlet of survey instructions was given by the accused to Sheo Persad to study, and on the 8th October a printed paper containing the rules as to the deposit of security by employees in the Survey Department was produced by the accused. Rs. 75 was there indicated as the amount fixed for security in the case of an Inspector; and, at the suggestion of the accused, that sum was obtained by Sheo Persad from his father-in-law Mangar Mahton and paid to the accused. Certain official forms were then filled up by Sheo Persad with the assistance of the accused. Then, on the 18th October last, what purported to be a purwana, or letter of appointment signed by Mr. Kraal, the Assistant Superintendent of the Survey Department and bearing an official stamp, was presented by the accused to the complainant. That purwana directed Sheo Persad to join Mr. Kraal in the Monghyr District, on the 1st November as an Inspector on Rs. 25 a month. The purwana also mentioned Rs. 12-8 as payable for uniform; and accordingly that sum was obtained by Sheo Persad from his father-in-law and given to the accused. On the 27th October the accused asked for Rs. 25, on the ground that the head clerk would upset the whole arrangement unless paid that sum. Sheo Persad agreed to pay the money. On consulting his master Ganesh, however, the suspicions of the latter were roused. He said it was difficult to understand how a mere underling could interfere in the matter after a purwana had actually been issued by the Saheb; and so, on the advice of Ganesh, a reference was made to Mr. Kraal himself. The result was that Mr. Kraal denounced the purwana and his signature thereon as impudent forgeries; and the Police were applied to and the accused arrested. His house was searched next morning; and one of the die-stamps used in the survey office as also the appointment purwana of the accused himself bearing the real signature of Mr. Kraal were discovered.

These are, shortly, the facts of the case. They have been duly proved by the witnesses for the prosecution. The defence is a total denial of the whole story which is declared to be concocted and false. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. The only admission made by him is that he sent the letter of the 22nd September in which the payment of Rs. 4 to the peshkar is mentioned.

We have had all the evidence laid before us: and it has been commented on by the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown and the pleader who appears on behalf of the accused. We may mention that this is a reference under sec. 307, C.Cr P., and that although we are bound in dealing with it to give due weight to the opinion of the Sessions Judge and the verdict of the jury, we are entitled to make up our minds for ourselves on the question of the guilt or otherwise of the accused. After hearing the evidence we have no doubt whatever that the story of the prosecution is perfectly true and we feel no doubt that the accused has been guilty of cheating and of using a forged document as genuine.

The learned pleader for the accused has raised various objections both as to the regularity of the proceedings in the Sessions Judge's Court and as to the credibility of the witnesses. In the first place, he maintains that the trial of the accused on seven charges—three of cheating under sec. 420, I.P.C, two of forgery under secs. 466 and 468, I.P.C, one of using as genuine a forged document under sec. 471, I.P.C, and one of cheating by personation under sec. 419, I.P.C is irregular. In support of this contention he cites the case of Birendra Lal Bhandur v. The Emperor and the case of Bhagwath Dial v. The King-Emperor, the latter case being one tried by the Punjab Chief Court.

It appears to us, however, that the trial of the accused on all these charges was perfectly regular, under sec. 235, Cr. P.C The offences with which the accused has been charged in this case all form one transaction. The accused represented himself to be an Inspector in the Survey Department and he committed two acts of cheating, relying upon that representation. He then made use of a forged document purporting to be a letter of appointment, signed by Mr. Kraal, the Assistant Superintendent in the Survey Department, appointing the complainant to be an Inspector: and, on the strength of that document, he obtained a further sum of Rs. 12-8 as from Sheo Persad on the 18th October last. In our opinion these offences form one and the same transaction; and, therefore, under sec. 235, Cr. P.C, there has been no irregularity in the proceedings. The cases relied upon by the pleader for the accused differ very considerably from the present case. In the case of Birendra Lal v. The Emperor there were two distinct transactions, one committed apparently in the Registration Office and the other when an attempt was made to cheat a Loan office. Then, the case of Bhagwath Dial v. The King-Emperor relates to an offence which comes under the provisions both of secs. 234 and 235, C.Cr P., and the accused in that case was tried, first, for the forgery of three cheques and, secondly, for cheating in respect of each cheque and then for falsifying certain account books. Now the third offence was clearly not committed in the same transaction as that in which the first two were committed.

The case of the present accused seems to us to be on all fours with that of The Emperor v. Sherufalli Allibhoy in which the trial was held not to be illegal.

Then the pleader for the accused has impugned the credibility for the witnesses for the prosecution. But we have come to the conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses is perfectly reliable. The evidence of Sheo Persad is impugned because there is some difference in the dates of the occurrences as mentioned by him in the first information report and the evidence he gave before the Sessions Judge. In the first information report he seems to have said that the cheating on the first occasion, that is, in respect of the Rs. 5, was committed on the 2nd October: whereas it appears that it was really committed on the 24th September. The complainant appears in the first information to have made a bonâ fide mistake; and in determining the correct date he was assisted when giving evidence before the Sessions Judge by a reference to the letter which the accused admits that he sent to the complainant and which is dated 22nd September. Then, there is some little discrepancy as to the date on which, he says, the second offence of cheating was committed. But that is not important. It was very natural that a young man of but little education, like Sheo Persad, should have made mistakes in describing events of which he kept no record whatever. There is no mistake made about the date of the third offence of cheating committed on the 18th October and there could have been none, because the purwana which is said to be forged is dated the 18th October, and that enabled the complainant to fix the date of the occasion on which he was cheated out of Rs. 12-8 as.

The credibility of Mangar Mahton, the father-in-law of the complainant, is impugned because it is said that this man has not been able to produce any record of the payments which he made on behalf of the complainant to the accused. In particular, it is said that he should have been able to show in his account the payment of the sum of Rs. 75 said to have been made on the 8th October. But this witness, who is a butter merchant, explains that he keeps an accurate account of the transaction of his business, but no account of his private disbursements. This is not an unlikely story but a very probable one: for people are often particular about their business affairs but careless with regard to their private transactions.

Then, the credibility of the witness Ram Lal Gowala has been impugned on the ground that he is a chance witness. We do not think, however, that he is a chance witness. He appears to be a close neighbour of the father-in-law of the complainant, Mangar Mahton. We there fore see no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by these witnesses. The are apparently respectable men: and no reason is shown why they should give false evidence. There is, moreover, no ground for supposing that they bear the accused any grudge. Their evidence then clearly proves the substantial truth of the story for the prosecution.

We now turn to the question of the offences of which the accused should be convicted. We entirely believe the story of the three acts of cheating committed by the accused on the 24th September, the 8th October and the 18th October respectively. There is ample evidence, in our opinion, to show that he committed these acts on these dates. He has therefore been guilty of offences under sec. 420, I.P.C Similarly, we feel not the slightest doubt as to his being guilty of an offence under sec. 471, I.P.C, that is of having used on the 18th October a purwana or letter of appointment, a document purporting to be signed by Mr. Kraal. It is proved beyond a doubt that this purwana was never signed by Mr. Kraal and the accused undoubtedly used it as genuine and by means of it obtained payment of Rs. 12-8 from the complainant. We have, therefore, no hesitation in convicting the accused under sec. 471, I.P.C, and as the document purports to be a document signed by a public servant in his official capacity, we convict him under sec. 471 read with sec. 466, I.P.C

In these circumstances, as we find him guilty under sec. 471 read with sec. 466, I.P.C, we do not think it necessary to find him guilty of the offences of forgery under secs. 466 and 468, with which he has been charged. We have not very much doubt that he forged the document. The fact of the handwriting of this purwana being similar to the handwriting in the letter which he admits he sent to the complainant on the 22nd September and the fact that a die-stamp was found in his house which corresponds with the impression stamped on the purwana point to the conclusion that the accused forged the punwana. But it is unnecessary for us to convict him under secs. 466 and 468 as well as under-sec. 471 read with sec. 466, I.P.C There remains the charge under sec. 419, I.P.C, of cheating by personation. It is not necessary, we think, to convict him under this section. The pleader for the accused has contended that his client cannot be convicted of an offence under this section, because, although he may have given a false description of himself, he did not describe himself as being any other person than he is. It is unnecessary to consider this question, because we think that a conviction for the three offences under sec. 420, I.P.C, and a conviction for the one under sec. 471, I.P.C, are sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We acquit the accused of the charges under secs. 466, 468 and 419, I.P.C But we convict him of the three offences under sec. 420, I.P.C, and of the one offence under sec. 471, I.P.C, read with sec. 466, I.P.C

We sentence him for each offence to three years' rigorous imprisonment, but we direct that the sentences do run concurrently.

B.C

Verdict set aside.