Judgment:
Pradeep Kumar, J.
1. The revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.1.2007 passed by chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. case No. 1340/2004 and T.R. No. 1457 of 2007 by which judgment he found the petitioner, Balram Mandal guilty under Sections 466/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 2 years under all the three sections. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and against the Judgment in appeal passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 1, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2007 dated 24th May, 2007 by which Judgment he found the appellant guilty under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 2 years. However, he acquitted the petitioner under Section 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the main point in revision is that there is no evidence that the petitioner was knowing that the order of recall which he is presenting before the police was a forged document and as such the finding of conviction under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by Sri Alok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad stating therein that in G.R. Case No. 434 of 1996 accused, Balram Mandal was convicted and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year on 25.5.1993. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 77/93 on 9.7.2002, the appellate Court, confirmed the judgment of the lower Court and the bail bond of accused was cancelled, accordingly, on 5.9.2002 non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused. When, the accused did not turn up then processes under Sections 82/83 were issued on 12.12.2002. Even then, when the accused did not turn up then processes were issued through S.P., Dhanbad on 7.1.2004. Suddenly, on 19.3.2004 the police came to the Court and returned the processes issued by the Court since recall order was sent by the Court. The informant-Judicial Magistrate was astonished at the said recall order of the processes was not issued by the Court nor it was signed by him and still both were forged. It was written that since records have been sent to the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, hence the processes under Sections 82-83, Cr PC including warrant of arrest have been recalled. It was alleged that the informant in conspiracy with unknown persons had forged this recall order and produced the same at Katras Police Station due to which the processes were returned. On the basis of the said FIR by the Judicial Magistrate the case under Section 419/420/464, 468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.
4. It is also further submitted that during trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and PW 4 the informant proved his FIR as also he proved the recall slip which he claimed was not signed by him.
PW 1, Sriram Mandal gave a detailed evidence and stated that when the accused was called by Dy. S.P., went to him and stated that the recall order was given to him by the Junior advocate of his Senior. Chunnu Babu and there is no evidence that the accused had any knowledge that the document was forged and hence his conviction is bad and fit to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that both the Courts below have given a clear finding that the petitioner, Balram Mandal, who was an accused in G.R. Case No. 434/96 before the informant-Judicial Magistrate had full knowledge since he was convicted earlier and thereafter he had filed an appeal in which he was granted bail and subsequently when his appeal was dismissed non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued without filing any appeal in the High Court. He knowingly produced a forged recall order and as such he had full knowledge of the same and knowingly he produced the same because it is admitted case of PW 1, Sriram Mandal, his brother that he produced the recall order before the police. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence of PW 1 has clearly given a finding that the petitioner had knowledge that it is a forged document and he knowingly produced the same and as such his conviction is proper under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidences on record, I find that the main witness is that PW 1, Sriram Mandal. who stated before the Court that when he along with his brother Balram Mandal were tried in earlier case and he along with others were acquitted, but Balram Mandal was convicted for one year imprisonment and his Sr. Advocate was Chhunu Babu, accused disclosed his name as Sri S.P. Lal. It is submitted that they had given Rs. 25.000/- to him for filing appeal but when warrant of arrest came then they went to Chhunu Babu and subsequently the recall order was given by his Junior Advocate.
7. PW 1 has stated that he does not know the name of Junior Advocate probably his name was Yadav Jee. Subsequently PW 1 in para 7 stated that in G.R. Case the case was argued by Chhunu Babu @ S.P. Lal and Junior Advocate was R.D. Mahto. Thus after the evidence of PW 1. it appears that the name of Junior advocate of S.P. Lal is Yadav Jee. At para 7 he says that Junior advocate of S.P. Lal is R.D. Mahto.
8. At paras 24 to 25 of his cross-examination, he denied that Chhunu Babu had demanded Rs. 25,000/- for filing appeal. He further denied that Chhunu Babu told them that accused, Balram Mandal would be enlarged on bail and also asked to come with bailors.
9. Thus the entire evidence of PW 1 was contradicted during his cross-examination at paras 24-25. The trial Court after considering all the evidences by the prosecution that the entire defence of the accused that the recall order was given by his Sr. Advocate, Chhunu Babu or his Junior Advocate are only to mislead the Court and in para 32 the Court came to a finding that only accused, Balram Mandal is responsible for creating the forged recall order and presenting the same before the police. The appellate Court also came to the same conclusion. I have also gone through the evidences, it is clear that the accused-petitioner, Balram Mandal knowingly produced the forged recall order before the police. In that view of the matter, the accused-petitioner was rightly found guilty under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted thereunder.
10. I find no merit in this revision application accordingly the same is dismissed.