Patna High Court
Idu Jolaha vs Emperor on 14 December, 1917
Equivalent citations: 46IND. CAS.293, AIR 1918 PATNA 274
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of this case are that there lived in Nelphamari in the District of Rangpur two families of Bengali gentlemen, one of which we may call Halakhdhar's family and the other Harender's family. These two families are on very bad terms. In Gopalgunj lives the family of Subdhan Haji and Idu Mia. Subdhan Haji has been far sometime living in Nelphamari in Harender's house. In 1914 Subdhan instituted a civil suit against Halakhdhar claiming some Rs. 200 on a bond. That suit was dismissed on the 4th September 1914. In it Idu was a witness. The papers of this case were shown to a Bengali gentleman living in Gopalgunj. Mr. Raj Chandra Banerji, now a Head Master of the Gopalgunj English High School, by Idu Mia. Idu when showing him the papers asked the Head Mister's advice as to instituting a similar suit in Gopalgunj. The Head Master remembers distinctly that he said to him, it is against your religion to institute a false suit. Do not do so." No suit was instituted by Idu, but in April 1915 a suit was instituted by one Jodha, who, as the evidence shows, was under the influence of Idu, against Halakhdhar of Nelphamari, In it, with the plaint in the suit, were filed three letters said to have been written by Halakhdhar to Jodha and an account said to have been made up and signed by Halakhdhar. On the case coming to trial the Courts were agreed that the suit was a false suit and that the documents used in support of it were forgeries. Sanction was, therefore, given to prosecute Jodha for bringing the false case and Subdhan and Idu for abetting the institution of the case and the use of these documents as genuine. Sabdhan has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jodha has been convicted and files no appeal. Idu has also been convicted and is the appellant before us.
2. Upon a narrative of the case there can be no doubt whatever that the case was in all probability not Jodha's case at all but Ida's case: and this probability is lifted to the level of certainty by the evidence of the Pleader employed nominally by Jodha, Babu Chandra Gokhul Prasad. He tells us that the interest taken by Idu in the case was not that of a friend or a legal agent, but that of a principal. This evidence, coupled with the evidence of the Head Master as to Ida's desire to bring in Gopalgunj a case which would obliterate the pain of the defeat at Nelphamari, is to us conclusive evidence that this case was not Jodha's case but Idu's case and, it being admitted by the appellant in this case that Jodha's case was a false case and the documents used in support of it forgeries, it follows that Idu must have known that they were forged when he brought about their use in the false case instituted by his tool Jodha
3. Mr. Yunus asks us to rely on the case of Ambika Prasad Singh v. Emperor 35 C. 820 : 8 Cr. L.J. 398, in support of his proposition that inasmuch as all the three letters were not exhibited but only the account, the three letters being filed only with the plaint but not used in the course of the case, there has not been user within the meaning of Section 471. The case of Ambika Prasad Singh v. Emperor 35 C. 820 : 8 Cr. L.J. 398 has been fully dealt with in Mobarak Ali v. Emperor 15 Ind. Cas. 81 : 17 C.W.N. 94 : 13 Cr. L.J. 449, and, indeed, one of the learned Judges who decided the former case distinguished that case on the ground that the documents used in the former case were not documents upon which the decision of the case depends, in the sense that the documents filed with the plaint are the basis of a civil suit. It cannot be denied that inasmuch as documents not filed with the plaint may be rejected and their use refused at a subsequent stage of a case, and the first step towards the admission being the filing of them with the plaint, the filing of documents with a plaint is user.
4. We are asked to say that the sentence, which in this case is five years' rigorous imprisonment, is excessive. Mr. Yunus in this connection urges that the account paper is not a valuable security. It purports to be a document whereby a person acknowledges that he lies under a legal liability, and is a valuable security within the definition given in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision in Queen-Empress v. Ramasami 12 M. 148 : 1 Weir 533 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 452 supports this view, if support were necessary. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal is dismissed.