LexBODHU RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.JUiy u. 378 - Sui>REME OOlJRT REPoRTS [1963) BODHURAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Forgery-Application for compensation by di•placed ~·rson--Production of attested copy of forg,d verified claim before lettlement Officer--If amounts to use of forged document "" wenuine-Oomplaint by Settlement Officer, if required-Gode of Criminal Procedure 1898 (5 of 1898), s. 195(1)(c)-lndian Penal Gode, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 471-Displaced Persons (Oompensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) Rules. The appellant, a displaced person, made an application for compensation before the As•istant Settlement Officer functioning under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and in support of that appli· cation submitted an attested copy of his verified claim which on enquiry was found to be a fabricated document. The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge under s. 471 and s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence of imprisonment but set aside the fine. The decision of the Sessions Judge was affirmed by the High Court in revision. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the Assistant Settlement Officer was a court within the meaning of s. 195(1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the absence of a complaint by him the prosecution was incompetent and that the production of the copy of the verified claim was no offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code committed. Held, that no complaint by the Assistant Settlement Oflicer under s. 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ceuld be necessary, assuming that he was a court, since what was produced before him was not the original forged document but a copy of it. It was clear from the language of that section that it was only when the forged document was produced in court that that complaint by that court was necMsary. Sanmu/chw•gh v. The King, (1949) L. R. 77 I. A. 7, applied; 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 377 Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code penalised the use of a forged document as genuine. Where, as in the present case, an attested copy would serve the purpose, production of such a copy would amount to use of the ol'iginal forged document as genuine. The difference betweens. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 195(l)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that while the former did not require the production of the forged document itself, in court, the latter did so. CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. ~29 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 19, 1960, of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959. Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant. S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the respon- dent. 1962. July 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by W.aNcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajastha.n High Court. The appellant is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He obtained a registration card meant for displaced persons from the Rehabilitation Department in July 194:9. In 11:154, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (No. 44 of 1954) was enacted. Thereafter a noti- fioation was. issued by the Central Government under the Act requiring displaced persons having verified claims to make applications for payment of compensation. Thereupon the appellant made an application for compensa.tion (Ex. P-2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Al war in March 1955, as required under the Act and the Rules framed thereund'.lr· In support of that application, he submitted an attested copy of his verified claim (Ex. P-3). It appears t~at the 4ssista~t Se~tlell\el\~ \ ' '' BudhM Ram v. Ytate of Rojcuthan Wanchi• J. Budhu Ram v. State of Rajeslhan wanchoo J. 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] Officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allot- able' agricultural land to the appellant on quasi- permanent basis, and asked the Tehsildar Nagar to make a proposal in that connection in consulta- tion with the appellant. In the meantime, secret information was received that displaced persons in that area had obtained allotment of land on false and forged verified claims. The matter was then inquired into and it was found that the claim for compensation made by the appellant was based on a fab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.