Ambika Prasad Singh v. Emperor

Stephen and Holmwood, JJ.:— This is an appeal against a conviction under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine documents which the appellant knew or had reason to believe to be forged. The learned Judge differing from both the Assessors has convicted the accused, who has appealed from the conviction.

2. The case against the appellant is that on the 27th November 1906 he used two rent receipts, which he must have known to be forged, in a proceeding, which was instituted as one under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was subsequently altered into one under s. 145. What happened was that he was third party in the proceeding, and the case, as made against him by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Grown, was that he handed the receipts in question to his muktear, in order that they might be filed in Court in support of his claim, We need not consider whether the receipts were in fact forged, and whether they must be taken to have been forged with the knowledge of the accused, because we consider that the case breaks down on the point that there is no evidence that these receipts have been used or have been used fraudulently or dishonestly by the accused.

3. It appears from the evidence of the accused's muktear and of his muktear's mohurir, that what happened was that he with another party to the case produced the receipts in question and they were entered in a list, which was filed with the stafcemant made on behalf of the third party. They were at once denounced as forgeries, and they were never tendered in evidence. In the first place it appears to us that this does not on the facts before us constitute any user. There was no attempt to use these documents as evidence, and we are not at all satisfied that there was any fraudulent intention on behalf of the accused so to use them. There was certainly no attempt made to assert their genuine character, after they had once been impugned, and under these circumstances we cannot hold that there has been any user. In the second place the evidence that the accused himself had anything to do with whatever was done with these documents is very weak. He was at the time a boy of about 20. He saw his legal advisers in the presence of several other persons, and apparently was under the guidance of a man named Bhim. The muktear tells us that he did not seem to be particularly intelligent, and it appears likely enough that, if anybody used these documents, within the meaning of s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code, that person was Bhim and not the accused. Bhim was originally implicated in this offence, but he has been discharged by the Magistrate and was not before the Court. His absence seems to us to make it impossible for us to affirm the conviction of the accused. We have assumed that the receipts are forgeries, but the case, as made out by the prosecution, seems to us to have in it elements of considerable suspicion, and we must be taken to confine our decision to the two points we have mentioned.

4. The result is that this appeal must succeed, and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are set aside.

5. The accused will be discharged from his bail bond.