JUDGMENT 1. 1. In the present case both the accused-appellants have been convicted by a common judgment dated 26.2.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Udaipur and both of them were tried together in Sessions Case No. 252/93, therefore, I consider it just and proper to dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment. S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 227 of 1996 will be treated as leading case. 2. It is evident from the perusal of the judgement under appeals that both the accused appellants were charged Under Sections 8/21, 24 & 12 of the NDPS Act as well as Under section 471, Indian Penal Code together with Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. 3. The learned trial Judge after analytical discussion of the evidence available on record acquitted both the accused appellants Under Sections 8/21, 24 & 12 of the NDPS Act but found them guilty Under section 471 Read With Section 467, Indian Penal Code and convicted both the accused appellants to undergo seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo one year R.I. 4. The learned trial Judge Under section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 convicted both the accused appellants for one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. Both the sentences have been directed by the learned trial Judge to run concurrently. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Pradeep Shah as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. It is noticed that Cr. Appeal No. 227/96 has been admitted by this Court and record has been requisitioned. As regards Cr. Appeal No. 205/96 is concerned, it is listed today for admission. 6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties I propose to decide both these appeals at this stage finally as record of the Court below has already been received. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Pradeep Shah candidly admitted before me that he does not want to question the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge but he seriously questions sentences imposed upon the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Pradeep Shah candidly admitted before me that he does not want to question the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge but he seriously questions sentences imposed upon the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the definition of forgery given Under section 463, Indian Penal Code together with its explanation given Under section 464 Indian Penal Code. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the offence Under section 467 Read With Section 471 Indian Penal Code is not made out but according to him an offence Under section 465 Read With 471, Indian Penal Code is made out which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. His argument is confined only with regard to question of sentence. 9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offences either Under section 465 Read With 471 or offences Under section 467 Read With 471, Indian Penal Code are triable by the learned Magistrate. 10. The aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are being refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to learned Public Prosecutor the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted both the accused appellants Under section 467 Read With Section 471, Indian Penal Code. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. 12. A close scrutiny of the charge framed against the accused appellants leads towards an irresistible conclusion that they have been charged Under section 471, Indian Penal Code alone and there is no reference that they have also been charged either Under section 465 or 467, Indian Penal Code. 13. Section 471, Indian Penal Code clearly provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows, or has reason to believe to be forged document shall be punished in the manner as if he had forged such document. Section 465, Indian Penal Code provides punishment for forgery for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both whereas Section 467 provides punishment for forgery of valuable security, will etc. Section 465, Indian Penal Code provides punishment for forgery for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both whereas Section 467 provides punishment for forgery of valuable security, will etc. punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus Section 471, Indian Penal Code is a residuary section which provides punishments for using fradulently or dishonestly any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged documents. Punishment provided Under section 471, Indian Penal Code depends on the nature of forged documents specified Under Sections 465,466, 467, 468 & 469, Indian Penal Code. 14. However, since the learned counsel for the appellant is not disputing the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge, therefore, I do not consider it proper to enter into the merits about the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge. 15. There is yet another reason not to enter into the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge. A close scrutiny of the statements recorded Under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code of the accused appellants throw a flood of light that both of them have admitted about making of forged entry in their passport. 16. Looking into the facts and circumstances stated above instead of making analytical discussion of the intricate question about applicability of Section 465, Indian Penal Code as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants or about the applicability of Section 467, Indian Penal Code as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor. I think it just and proper to hold that both the accused appellants are entitled to suffer the sentences which they have already undergone and they have to pay the fine imposed by the learned trial Judge. In default of payment of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge both the appellants have to further undergo R.I. as imposed by the learned trial Judge. 17. Consequently, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge is affirmed but the sentences imposed by the learned trial Judge upon both the accused appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them. 17. Consequently, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge is affirmed but the sentences imposed by the learned trial Judge upon both the accused appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them. Imposition of fine upon the appellants and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. passed by learned trial Judge is also maintained.As a result of the aforementioned discussion both these appeals are hereby partly allowed in terms and conditions stated above.It is made clear that Art. (1) be returned to Chukwu Emeka Donhill who is appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 227/96 and Art. (11) be returned to appellant Tony @ Anthony @ Mohd. Ali, who is appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 205/96. A copy of this judgment be placed in Appeal No. 205/96.Appeal partly allowed. *******