Har Gobind and 3 ors. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....court and also additional district judge in appeal held that will was forged - additional district judge filed complaint under section 467 read with section 109 of code against appellants - appellants challenged such order of additional district judge - court of additional district judge which filed complaint had not given any finding as to part played by appellants in execution of will - under provisions of section 476 of code it was incumbent on court filing complaint to record clear finding regarding exact offence which was committed by appellants - no such finding had been recorded by district judge - appeal allowed and order of additional district judge filing complaint set aside. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] custodial.....s. murtaza fazal ali, j.1. this appeal must succeed on a short point. by the order impugned the addl. district judge filed a complaint under section 467/109 against the two appellants. it appears that in a suit filed by the plaintiff basing his claim on a will executed by the testator the appellants are alleged to have been attesting witnesses and taken part in the execution of the will. the trial court of the sub judge as also the addl. district judge in appeal held that the will was not genuine and was a forged document. in fact, after going through the findings of the judgments in the suit it would appear that all that the courts really found was that the will was executed under suspicious circumstances and not that it was a down-right forgery. even so after issuing notice to the.....