Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On the 6th September, 1950 and the 9th October, 1950, Jainarain Singh applied for and obtained certified copies from the High Court of the three exhibits, exhibit 7 the reconstituted compromise petition, exhibit 7 (a) the copy filed by the plaintiff and exhibit A the copy filed by the appellant in the proceeding under Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. It may be stated, however, that after the appellant obtained copies of these documents, exhibit 7 was missing from the records of the case.

The respondent Muneshwar Pd. Sahi of Misc. Appeal No. 172 of 1950 filed a petition before the Registrar on the 6th September 1951, stating that certain documents were found missing from the record and that in some of them interpolations were made at the instance of the appellant Jainarain Singh. He alleged further in the petition that this was discovered in the lower Court when the records were received there from the High Court in connection with some other matter. The Registrar by his order dated the 7th September, 1951, directed the Deputy Registrar to hold enquiry and to make a report.

Exhibit XI of the charge corresponds to exhibit 13 (B) of the Sessions trial and is a certified copy obtained by the accused from the High Court of the document purported to have been filed by him as compromise petition and it was marked exhibit A by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. Several pages of exhibit A, however, are missing from the file in the High Court leaving only the last three pages. Exhibit X2 of the charge corresponds to exhibit 13(a) of the Sessions trial and is a certified copy of the compromise petition as it was reconstructed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and was marked exhibit 7 by him in the above proceeding under Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. It may be stated that this document is missing.

Mr. Baldeva Sahay, therefore, rightly did not stress the point that exhibits 13 and 13(a) must be held to be copies of exhibits 7 (a) and 7. The point, however, made by him was that it must be held that exhibits 13 and 13(a) are true copies granted to the appellant from the High Court. If there was any interpolation or forgery in respect of these two documents and if a part was missing from exhibit A, it could not be said that the appellant was responsible for such interpolation.

If the High Court issued these three documents as certified copies of the documents on record in the High Court, and if the appellant filed them in the Court of the Sessions Judge, it cannot be held that the appellant used forged documents knowing them to be forged or having reason to believe that they were forged. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention in view of the circumstances of the present case.