LexDHARMADEO RAI versus RAMNAGINA RAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H DHARMADEO RAI v. RAMNAGINA llAI January 18, 1972 (J. M. SHELAT AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 111 Indian Registration Act, 1916, 4'· 83(1)-Section is permissive and not prohibitive-Does not prevent an aggrieved private person from filing a complaint. A private complaint in connection with the forgery of a zerpeshgi lease and its registration under the Indian Registration Act was filed against several persons including the appellant. The appellant was aC<1uitted by the trial court. In an appeal .filed by the complainant the High Court .cpnvioted the appellant under s. 82( d) of the Indian Registration Act for abetment of an offence under s. 82 after overriding his contention that the complaint was not maintainable without the permission as requi~ed by s. 83 of the AcJ. Under s. 83(1) a prosecution for any offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar in whose territories, district or sub~ distriGt as the case may be, the offence has been committed. In appeal by special leave before this Court the only point argued on behalf of the appellant \\:as that the complaint was incompet~nt as it wa-s filed _by a person \vithout obtaining the necessary permission under s. 83 of the Act and therefore the conviction of the appellant wa·s bad and must be set aside. HELD : On a reading of the section it would be clear that it deals only \\'ith pro~cution for an offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capac~ty. It, in effect, provides that \vhere an offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, a prosecution may be commenced by or with the pennis- sion of any of the officers mentioned in the section. The section can possibly ha\"e no applic+ation to cases in which the offences are committed under the Act, but the offences do not come to the knowledge of the .Re· gistering Officer in his official capacity. 'fl 13 HJ The section is not prohibitory in that it does not preclude a private per~on from commencing a prosecution. Even in a case where the com- mission of offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Offi~r in his official capacity, the section does not prohibit a private person.from com- mencing a prosecution as the section is clearly permissive in Iangua~e and intent. [114 BJ One would have expected a more apt phraseology if the purpose of the Legislature was to prohibit the prosecution of an offence under the Act by a private individual. Seeing that a private person will be mdre serious- ly injured by the action of an offender who not only forges a document but endeavours to give it a higher effiejacy by registering it, there is no reason why the private person should be deprived of the liberty to J*ose· cute the offender. There is also no reaoon why a regi!;tering officer guilty of an offence under s. 81 of the Act should get Immunity from prosecu- tion by a private individual injured ther<lby, In. s. 195(1) of the ·Criminal . 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. Procedure Code, s. 70(1) of the Indian Stamp Act ands. 29 of the Indian A Arms Act, !878 the language employed is prohibitory in character. Sec- tion 83 (I) of the Act is not prohibitory either in terms or in intention. [!16A-G] The view taken by the Allahabad and Rangoon High Courts that the weird 'may' ins. 83(1) should be read as 'must' was not correct. [114 H•l 15 DJ Gopinatlz v. Kulrflp Singh and Anr., I.LR. Calcutta Series, Vol. XI, 566, Re Piranu Nadathi and Anr. and Emperor v. Yesa Nana Didwagh and Ors., A.LR. 1937. Bombay 191, approved. B Nge Pan Gaing and Ors. v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1927 Ranaoon 61 and Emperor v. Mohd. Mehdi and Ors., A.l.R. 1934 Allahabad, 963, dis· approved. Ganga Dibya and Anr. v. Emperor, A.LR. 1943 Patna 227 and Habib C Shah v. Mehda Shah, A.l.R. 1960 J & K. 18, referred to. K. M. Kane.vi v. State of Mysore, [11968] 3 S.C.R. 821. held inapplic- able. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1969. D Appeal by Special Leave from the Jud~ent and Order dated the 12th November, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1966. S. N. Prasad, for the appellant. K. K. Sinha, for the respondent. R. C. Prasad, for the State of Bihar. The Judgment of the Court was del
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.