Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1721 (JHR)

Mantu Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-28

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
ORDER : The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 has been allowed and the opposite parties were acquitted from the charges committed under Section 420 and 120 (B) of IPC. 2. The case of the complainant-petitioner in brief is that the complainant, Rabi Rajwar, Niranjan Rajwar, Anadi Rajwar and Bideshi Rajwar are the owner of land appertaining to Mauza No. 28, Khata No. 87, Area 1 acre 68 decimals of village Dumorjore and they were in the settled possession of the land. The complainant alongwith the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were descendants of the recorded raiat. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 presented themselves as sons of Jitu Rajwar and sold the property in question of the complainant and his family members to accused nos. 7 to 10 vide registered sale deed No. 125 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. 3. After inquiry a prima facie case was found proved and charges were framed against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 under Section 420 and 120(B) IPC. They pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial. 4. The learned trial court found the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 guilty for the offence committed under Section 420 and 120(B) IPC and convicted them accordingly. 5. On appeal, the learned appellate court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 from the charges under Sections 420 and 120(B) IPC placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC Cri. 929 wherein the law is held as under: “14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a “false document”, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. 15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.” 6. The learned appellate court categorically held that the main charge against the accused persons is that registered deed of sale was executed with respect to land in question which was not owned by them. He further held that no one can transfer a better title than what he has and finally allowed the appeal and acquitted opposite party nos. 2 to 10. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The complainant is before this Court challenging the judgment passed by the appellate court. It would be appropriate to refer herein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others (supra) at paragraph nos. 23 and 24, which is as under: “23. The complainant is before this Court challenging the judgment passed by the appellate court. It would be appropriate to refer herein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others (supra) at paragraph nos. 23 and 24, which is as under: “23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 24. The term “fraud” is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of “fraud” is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines “fraud” with reference to a party to a contract.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the learned appellate court and the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the procedure or any manifest error on a point of law, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 9. As a result, the instant revision application is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Revision dismissed.