LexSEKENDAR SHEIKH AND ANOTHER versus STTE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1969
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
SEKE~DAR SHEIKH AND ANOTHER
v.
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HmAYATULLAH and
J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Criminal Law-Fo,gery-Presenting document for regi•·
tration under as.mmed Mmes-Former offence tried wilh jury-
Trial Judge laking on< view of evidence and jury another-If
•ufficient ground fur rejecting verdicl-TeRt-Evidence leading
to acquittal of one offence, if could be u.ed for convicting of
another~Indian. Pe1'al Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). M. 467,
109-0ode_of-Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), •· J07-
lndian Regi•tralion Act, 1908 (XV I of 190Sj a. 82 (c).
The first appellant was tried for the offence of forging a
valuable security punishable under s. 467 of the Indian Penal
Code and for the offonce of falsdy personating anoth<r and
presenting a
document for registration
punishable under
s. 82 (c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
The second
appellant wa• charged with abetment of these offences.
The
lffencc under the Indian Penal Code wa• tried with a jury and
the offence under ~he [ndian Registr.\tion Act was tried without
a jury. The jury by am •j~rity of 4 to 3 returned a verdict of
guilty. The trial judge rejected the verdict on the ground that
there was "absolutely no reliable evidence" and referred the
case to the Hi~h Court under s. 307 Criminal Procedure Code.
The trial Judge ;.!so acq••itted the accused of the offence under
the Registration Act. No appeal was preferred against the
order of acquittal. The High Court came to the conclusion
that there was sufficient evidence
to
est~bl ish against the
appellants the ofl'cnc• under the Penal Code.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the
trial court having ar.quitted the 'appellants of the offence tinder
the Indian Registration Act and no appeal having been pre-
ferred again'lt the order,.it was not cnmpctent to the High Court
to rely upon the evidence tendered to prove the offence under
s. 82 of the Registr•tion Act for the purpose of convicting the
appellants of the off<nce under the lndi•n Penal Code.
Held, that an item of evidence may corroborate charges
for more offences than one, and acquittal of the accused for one
,
1 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
853 ·
such offence will not render that item of evidence inadmissible
in assessing the criminality of the accused for another offence
corroborated thereby.
Held, if the jury takes one view of the evidence and the
Judge is of the opinion that they should have taken another
view, the view taken by the
jm y must preva ii unless the
evidence is such that no reasonable body of men could have
reached the conclu.ion arrived at by the jury. In such a case
reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
justified.
·
Ramanugrah Singh v. King Nmperor, (1946) ·L. R. 73
I. A. 174, Malak Khan v. King Emperor, ( 1945) L. R. 72
I. A. 305.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRioDICTION : Crimi-
nal Appeal No. llO of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 25, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in
Reference No. 10 of 1960.
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
K. B. Bagchi, S. N. Mulcherjee for P. [(. Bose,
for the respondent.
1963. February 8. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH,
J .-The
first
appellant-Sekander
Sheikh-was charged iµ a trial held before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in the State
of West Bengal, for the offences of forging a valuable
security punishable under s. 467 I. P. Code and of
falsely personating another in such ~ssumed charac-
ter and presenting · a
document for registration
punishable under s. 82 {c) of Indian Registration
Act. The second appellant-Hasibf.lddiµ Sheikh-
was charged with abetment of these offe~. Th'
trial for the offences of forging a valwihl~ secw:ity
1963
Sektnt!ar Sluilch
v.
Slate of t<Vest Bengal
Shah, /.
1963
Stktnior Shn>.h
v.
Stalt of l'f1Jt B1•1gal
51Nh, J.
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
and abetment thereof was held by the Sessions Judge
sitting with a jury and for the offence• under the
Registration Act without a Jury. The jury brought
in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 against
the appellants fur the offences of forging a valuable
security and 'abetmcnt thereof, but the Judge did not
accept the verdict and made a reference under s. 307
of the Code of Criminal Procedure· to the High
Court of Calcutta, beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.