Ram Narain vs State Of Punjab
Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Not extracted
Decision Date: 11 February, 1955
Coram: Bhagwati
In this case the appellant was a Head Constable of Police who, at the time of the occurrence, served as the accountant in the National Volunteer Corps office located in Ferozepore District. On 7 February 1950 he withdrew from the Treasury an amount of Rs 11,579-8-0 by presenting a contingent voucher that was described as a subsistence allowance bill for the month of February 1950. The bill appeared to be signed by Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh, who held the position of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore. The signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh were later alleged to be forged, and the appellant was charged with having, on or about 7 February 1950, fraudulently and dishonestly used the forged document as if it were genuine. The charge alleged that the appellant knew, or had reason to believe, that the subsistence allowance bill was forged at the time he used it, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the Penal Code.
The case was tried before the Additional District Magistrate, Ferozepore, who rejected the appellant’s contention that a sanction from the State Government was required for prosecution under Section 5(2) of the East Punjab National Volunteer Corps Act, 1947. After examining the evidence, the magistrate concluded that the signatures on the bill were indeed forged and that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged. Accordingly, the magistrate convicted the appellant and imposed a sentence of four and one-half years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant appealed the conviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court. Justice Soni, hearing the appeal, affirmed the magistrate’s finding that no sanction was necessary and confirmed the conviction. However, Justice Soni considered the term of four and one-half years’ rigorous imprisonment to be inadequate and held that a monetary fine should also have been imposed. He gave a verbal notice to the appellant’s counsel to show cause why a fine should not be levied, heard the counsel the following day, and then directed that a fine of Rs 11,579-8-0 be imposed; in default of payment the fine would be accompanied by an additional term of one and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant subsequently filed a special leave petition before this Court challenging the High Court’s judgment and order.
Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the appellant again raised the question of whether a sanction under Section 5(2) of the East Punjab National Volunteer Corps Act, 1947, was required. Upon reviewing the rules framed by the State Government pursuant to Section 8 of the same Act, the counsel chose not to pursue the contention further. Consequently, the Court noted that no further argument on this point was necessary and proceeded without further discussion of the sanction requirement.
In the case, the Court observed that the conclusion reached by the learned Additional District Magistrate, who had conducted the trial, was correct and that the appellant had been lawfully prosecuted for the offense with which he was charged. The prosecution’s charge against the appellant required it to demonstrate that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh appearing on a bill dated 7-2-1950 were forged and that the appellant had dishonestly presented that bill as genuine in order to obtain from the Treasury the sum of Rs 11,579-8-0. The prosecution succeeded in establishing the first element, namely the falsity of the signatures. It led substantial evidence, including the testimony of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh himself, to show that the signatures on the bill were not authentic. In his defence, the appellant examined several witnesses associated with the Imperial Bank of India, Ferozepore, where the payment had been effected on the basis of the questioned bill. He also called Mr Charles E. Hardless, a handwriting specialist, who testified that the signatures on the bill had been retouched. The expert clarified that the retouching was not intended to improve the signatures but rather to alter them so that they would differ from the usual handwriting of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected the defence version and jointly concluded that the signatures on the bill dated 7-2-1950 were forged. These findings were concurrent facts, and, following the well-established practice of this Court, they were not disturbed. Consequently, it could be taken as satisfactorily proved that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on the bill were forged. The only other contention advanced by the appellant’s counsel was that the appellant lacked any fraudulent or dishonest intent in using the forged bill as genuine. The appellant argued that the learned Judge had not posed any questions to him during the further examination in the High Court, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to explain the circumstances that were alleged to be against him. The record, however, showed that the appellant had withdrawned Rs 11,579-8-0 on 7-2-1950, Rs 1,689-2-0 on 8-2-1950 and Rs 17,889-12-0 on 18-2-1950, amounting to a total of Rs 31,158-6-0, which he claimed as his subsistence allowance for the month of February 1950. When he filed his expenditure return for February around 3-3-1950, he accounted only for the latter two withdrawals, totalling Rs 19,578-14-0, and omitted the first withdrawal of Rs 11,579-8-0 made on 7-2-1950. That omission, by itself, was enough to
The Court observed that the omission of the amount of Rs 11,579-8-0 from the appellant’s expenditure return clearly demonstrated a fraudulent and dishonest purpose in having withdrawn that sum on a bill bearing forged signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh. Because this circumstance was proved against the appellant, the burden shifted to him to show that the failure to include the Rs 11,579-8-0 in the return was not dishonest. The only explanation he offered, when questioned by the learned judge during further examination, was that he had not received “B M 28” at that time. B M 28 was described as an extract of the bill that the appellant had sent together with the original bill, which was supposed to be returned to him by the Treasury at the end of the month. The appellant argued that since the expenditure return was filed on the third day of the following month, any omission would be corrected in the next month’s return. However, this statement did not establish that the Treasury had failed to return B M 28 in connection with the bill dated 7-2-1950. If the appellant’s case was that B M 28 had not been returned, he should have put that issue to the prosecution’s witnesses during cross-examination or presented his own evidence. The clerk of the Accountant-General’s Office in Simla (PW 2) produced the bills but was not asked about B M 28 concerning the bill sent on 7-2-1950, which was expected to be returned after payment. Similarly, the clerk of the Treasury Office in Ferozepore (DW 4) testified to receiving the bill dated 7-2-1950 but was not questioned about B M 28. The Court noted that calling DW 4 as a witness gave the appellant an opportunity to discover whether B M 28 had been returned to him after the bill’s payment but before he filed the February expenditure return. The appellant did not pursue this line of inquiry, and the record contains no explanation from him regarding why the sum of Rs 11,579-8-0 was omitted from the return filed around 3-3-1950.
In the Court’s view, the facts established that the appellant acted with a fraudulent and dishonest motive when he used the forged bill dated 7-2-1950 as a genuine document to withdraw Rs 11,579-8-0 on that date. Consequently, the prosecution successfully proved the offence with which the appellant had been charged. The conviction therefore stood as rightly affirmed by both the lower courts.
The appellant had been convicted by both the Courts below of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Additional District Magistrate of Ferozepore imposed a rigorous imprisonment term of four and a half years, describing it as a deterrent sentence deliberately designed to punish the appellant. This term of imprisonment was subsequently affirmed by the High Court, which confirmed the lower court’s judgment in its entirety. However, the Supreme Court held that there was no legal or factual basis for the High Court’s imposition of an additional monetary penalty of eleven thousand five hundred seventy-nine rupees and eight annas, nor for the provision that, should the fine remain unpaid, a further period of one and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment should be imposed as a default sanction. The Court observed that the specific embezzlement charge relating to the sum of Rs 11,579-8-0 had ultimately been unsuccessful, and consequently, the additional fine imposed by the High Court was unwarranted under the circumstances of the case.
While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the Penal Code and retained the original sentence of four and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the lower courts, it set aside the fine ordered by the High Court and the accompanying provision for rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in all respects except for the modification of the sentence as indicated, namely the removal of the additional fine and the default imprisonment provision.