# 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. SEKE~DAR SHEIKH AND ANOTHER v. ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 852
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-01-25
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRioDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. llO of 1961
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. HmAYATULLAH, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/852-supreme-court-reports-1964-vol-seke-dar-sheikh-and-another-v-st-a-te-of-2818
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Fo,gery-Presenting document for regi•·
tration under as.mmed Mmes-Former offence tried wilh juryTrial Judge laking on< view of evidence and jury another-If
•ufficient ground fur rejecting verdicl-TeRt-Evidence leading
to acquittal of one offence, if could be u.ed for convicting of
another~Indian. Pe1'al Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). M. 467,
109-0ode_of-Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), •· J07lndian Regi•tralion Act, 1908 (XV I of 190Sj a. 82 (c).
The first appellant was tried for the offence of forging a
valuable security punishable under s. 467 of the Indian Penal
Code and for the offonce of falsdy personating anoth<r and
presenting a
document for registration
punishable under
s. 82 (c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
The second
appellant wa• charged with abetment of these offences.
The
lffencc under the Indian Penal Code wa• tried with a jury and
the offence under ~he [ndian Registr.\tion Act was tried without
a jury. The jury by am •j~rity of 4 to 3 returned a verdict of
guilty. The trial judge rejected the verdict on the ground that
there was "absolutely no reliable evidence" and referred the
case to the Hi~h Court under s. 307 Criminal Procedure Code.
The trial Judge ;.!so acq••itted the accused of the offence under
the Registration Act. No appeal was preferred against the
order of acquittal. The High Court came to the conclusion
that there was sufficient evidence
to
est~bl ish against the
appellants the ofl'cnc• under the Penal Code.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the
trial court having ar.quitted the 'appellants of the offence tinder
the Indian Registration Act and no appeal having been preferred again'lt the order,.it was not cnmpctent to the High Court
to rely upon the evidence tendered to prove the offence under
s. 82 of the Registr•tion Act for the purpose of convicting the
appellants of the off<nce under the lndi•n Penal Code.
Held, that an item of evidence may corroborate charges
for more offences than one, and acquittal of the accused for one
,
1 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
853 ·
such offence will not render that item of evidence inadmissible
in assessing the criminality of the accused for another offence
corroborated thereby.
Held, if the jury takes one view of the evidence and the
Judge is of the opinion that they should have taken another
view, the view taken by the
jm y must preva ii unless the
evidence is such that no reasonable body of men could have
reached the conclu.ion arrived at by the jury. In such a case
reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
justified.
·
Ramanugrah Singh v. King Nmperor, (1946) ·L. R. 73
I. A. 174, Malak Khan v. King Emperor, ( 1945) L. R. 72
I. A. 305.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRioDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. llO of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 25, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in
Reference No. 10 of 1960.
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
K. B. Bagchi, S. N. Mulcherjee for P. [(. Bose,
for the respondent.
1963. February 8. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH,
J .-The
first
appellant-Sekander
Sheikh-was charged iμ a trial held before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in the State
of West Bengal, for the offences of forging a valuable
security punishable under s. 467 I. P. Code and of
falsely personating another in such ~ssumed character and presenting · a
document for registration
punishable under s. 82 {c) of Indian Registration
Act. The second appellant-Hasibf.lddiμ Sheikhwas charged with abetment of these offe~. Th'
trial for the offences of forging a valwihl~ secw:ity
1963
Sektnt!ar Sluilch
v.
Slate of t<Vest Bengal
Shah, /.
1963
Stktnior Shn>.h
v.
Stalt of l'f1Jt B1•1gal
51Nh, J.
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
and abetment thereof was held by the Sessions Judge
sitting with a jury and for the offence• under the
Registration Act without a Jury. The jury brought
in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 against
the appellants fur the offences of f

## Text

1969
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
SEKE~DAR SHEIKH AND ANOTHER
v.
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HmAYATULLAH and
J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Criminal Law-Fo,gery-Presenting document for regi•·
tration under as.mmed Mmes-Former offence tried wilh juryTrial Judge laking on< view of evidence and jury another-If
•ufficient ground fur rejecting verdicl-TeRt-Evidence leading
to acquittal of one offence, if could be u.ed for convicting of
another~Indian. Pe1'al Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). M. 467,
109-0ode_of-Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), •· J07lndian Regi•tralion Act, 1908 (XV I of 190Sj a. 82 (c).
The first appellant was tried for the offence of forging a
valuable security punishable under s. 467 of the Indian Penal
Code and for the offonce of falsdy personating anoth<r and
presenting a
document for registration
punishable under
s. 82 (c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
The second
appellant wa• charged with abetment of these offences.
The
lffencc under the Indian Penal Code wa• tried with a jury and
the offence under ~he [ndian Registr.\tion Act was tried without
a jury. The jury by am •j~rity of 4 to 3 returned a verdict of
guilty. The trial judge rejected the verdict on the ground that
there was "absolutely no reliable evidence" and referred the
case to the Hi~h Court under s. 307 Criminal Procedure Code.
The trial Judge ;.!so acq••itted the accused of the offence under
the Registration Act. No appeal was preferred against the
order of acquittal. The High Court came to the conclusion
that there was sufficient evidence
to
est~bl ish against the
appellants the ofl'cnc• under the Penal Code.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the
trial court having ar.quitted the 'appellants of the offence tinder
the Indian Registration Act and no appeal having been preferred again'lt the order,.it was not cnmpctent to the High Court
to rely upon the evidence tendered to prove the offence under
s. 82 of the Registr•tion Act for the purpose of convicting the
appellants of the off<nce under the lndi•n Penal Code.
Held, that an item of evidence may corroborate charges
for more offences than one, and acquittal of the accused for one
,
1 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
853 ·
such offence will not render that item of evidence inadmissible
in assessing the criminality of the accused for another offence
corroborated thereby.
Held, if the jury takes one view of the evidence and the
Judge is of the opinion that they should have taken another
view, the view taken by the
jm y must preva ii unless the
evidence is such that no reasonable body of men could have
reached the conclu.ion arrived at by the jury. In such a case
reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
justified.
·
Ramanugrah Singh v. King Nmperor, (1946) ·L. R. 73
I. A. 174, Malak Khan v. King Emperor, ( 1945) L. R. 72
I. A. 305.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRioDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. llO of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 25, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in
Reference No. 10 of 1960.
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
K. B. Bagchi, S. N. Mulcherjee for P. [(. Bose,
for the respondent.
1963. February 8. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH,
J .-The
first
appellant-Sekander
Sheikh-was charged iμ a trial held before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in the State
of West Bengal, for the offences of forging a valuable
security punishable under s. 467 I. P. Code and of
falsely personating another in such ~ssumed character and presenting · a
document for registration
punishable under s. 82 {c) of Indian Registration
Act. The second appellant-Hasibf.lddiμ Sheikhwas charged with abetment of these offe~. Th'
trial for the offences of forging a valwihl~ secw:ity
1963
Sektnt!ar Sluilch
v.
Slate of t<Vest Bengal
Shah, /.
1963
Stktnior Shn>.h
v.
Stalt of l'f1Jt B1•1gal
51Nh, J.
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
and abetment thereof was held by the Sessions Judge
sitting with a jury and for the offence• under the
Registration Act without a Jury. The jury brought
in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 against
the appellants fur the offences of forging a valuable
security and 'abetmcnt thereof, but the Judge did not
accept the verdict and made a reference under s. 307
of the Code of Criminal Procedure· to the High
Court of Calcutta, because in his view there was
'absolutely no reliable evidence' against the two
appellants in respect of the offence of forging a
valuable security and that it was in the interests of
justice to refer the case to the High Court.
The
Sessions Judge acquitced the two appellants of offences
under the Indian Registration Act. The High Court
declined to accept the reference and convicted the
two appellants respectively of the oil'ences punishable
under s. •!Iii and s. -167 read with s. Jt)!J of the
Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each appellant
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. \\'ith
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under
Art. 134 (I) (c) the appellants have appealed to this
Court.
The charges against the first appellant were-
(i) that on or about .January 15, I 9i>8, he had
in the town of Bcrhampore forged a Iiebanama in respect of certain property in
favour of one Ali Hossain purporting to
execute the same in the name of one
Kaimuddin of Debkundu and that the
execution of the document was made with
intent to cause the said Kaimuddin to part
with his property and to commit fraud ;
and
(ii) that on the same day he had falsely personated
Kaimuddin Sheikh and in that
aasumed
character had presented for
1 S.C.R.
SUPREMt COURT REPORTS
8.i5
registration
the
H eba -namr~
in
the
Berhampore sub-reg!stry and h •d affixed
his thumb 1mpress10ns
claiming to be
Kaimuddin Sheikh.
The second appellant was charged with abetting
the first appellant in the commission of the two
offences by identifying the first appellant as Kaimudclin Sheikh. At the trial the prosecution examined
one Swarana Kumar Dey who testified that he had
engrossed the Heba-nnma in favour of Ali Hossain
which was executed by the fir>t appellant purporting
to do so as Kaimuddin Sheikh, that the first appellant
had impressed his
thumb mark on the document
before him in token of execution of the lleba-nama
that the first appellant had represented himself to be
Kaimuddin Sheikh, and that the executant of the
document was identified before him as Kaimuddin
Sheikh by the second appellant Hasibuddin Sheikh.
Kaimuddin Sheikh testified that he had not executed
any Heba-nrimr1 in favour of Ali Hossain and that
he had not impressed his thumb-mark on any document in the presence of Swarana Kumar Dey.
A
certified copy of the Jleba-nrtma was shown to the
witness and he denied having executed and presented
the original thereof before the Sub-Registrar. Evidence was also tendered that the thumb impressions
of the two appellants were taken by the investigating
officer in the presence of a Magistrate and those
~pecimen thumb impressions were compared with
the thumb impressions in the register at the subregistry at Berhampore by a hand-writing expert and
that the thumb impressions of the first appellant tallied with the thumb impressions in the said register and
not with the thumb impressions of Kaimuddin Sheikh.
In the view of the High Court, this evidence was
sufficient to establish against the two appellants the
offences of forging a valuable security and abetment
thereof.
1961
Se!undar Si:ei!.:1~
v.
State of West B1ngaj
Shali, J,
1963
Stktnd'" ~W4
v.
Slatt of Wul Btntal
S/iah, J,
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
It is now well settled that in a reference under
s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if 1he
evidence is such that it can properly support a verdict
of guilty or not guilty, according to the view taken of
the evidence by the trial Court, and if the jury take
one view of the evidence and the Judge is of the
opinion that they should have taken the other, the
view of the jury must prevail. for they are the judges
of fact.
In such a case a reference under s. 307 of
the Cocle of Criminal Procedure is not justified. But
if the High Couri holds that upon the evidence no
reasonable body of men could have reached the con·
clusion arrived at by the jury, the reference will be
justified and the verdict of the jury will be disregarded : Rm1wnugrah Sinr;h v. KinlJ Emperor('). It
appears that the Court of Session was not impressed
by the testimony of Swarana Kumar Dey but it was
for the jury to assess the value of the evidence. The
jury had apparently accepted the evidence of
Swarana Kumar Dey and of Kaimuddin Sheikh, and
it could not be said that no reasonable body of men
could have accepted that evidence.
At the trial, evidence about the specimen
thumb impres>ions of the appellants laken during 1he
course of the investigation were
relied upon in
support of the prosecution case. This court has held
that there is no infringement of Ari. 20(3) of the
Constitution merely by tendering evidence of this
character, in support of the case for the proseculion
against a person accused of an offence: The State of
Bombay v. Kathi Kalu. Oghad ('). The Court in that
case set out certain propositions of which the following arc material-
"(ii) the words. 'to be a witness' in Art. 20(3)
do not include the giving of thumb impression
or impression of Palm, foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of the body by
an accused person for identification;
(I) (1946) L.R, 73 I.A, 17+.
(2) [1962) 3 S C.R. IO.
J
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
857
(iii) 'self-incrimination' me.ans conveying information based upon the personal knowledge
of the giver and does not include the mere
mechanical process of producing documents in
court· which do not contain any statement of
the accused based on his personal knowledge;
(iv) in order to come within the prohibition of
Art. 20(3) the testimony must be of such a
character that by itself it should have the
tendency to incriminate the accused;"
In view of this decision, counsel for the appellants
fair! y conceded tliat he could not
challenge the
admissibility of evidence relating to the taking of
thumb impre1sions of the first appellant and its use
for comparison with the thumb impressions in the
sub-registry at Berhampore, made at the time of presentation of the document for registratior>
It was urged, however, ·that when the Trial
Judge
acquitted
the
two
appellants
of
the
offences punishable under s. 82 (c) and 82 (d)
of the
Indian , Registration Act-the offence of
false personation and in such
a~sumed ch'itnleter
presenting a document,
and abetment thereofand that so
long as the order of acquittal was
not set aside in an appeal duly presented, the High
Court in a reference under s. 307 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was incompetent, relying upon
the evidence which was not regarded as reliable in
respect of the offences under the Registration Act,
to convict the appellants of the offences of forging a
valuable security and abetment thereof. It was
submitted that as the offences under s. 467 LP. Code
ands. 82 (c) Indian Registration Act formed part of
the same transaction and the case for the prosecution
for t_he former offence was substantially founded on
the same evidence which ·was not accepted by the
trial Court when acquitting the appellants of the
1969
S1kenda' Sheikh
v
State oj Wert Bengal
Shah, J.
1963
Stlct1ul·1r SJ.1ikh
y,
·'Iott of H t1l Ba1:;al
Shah, J.
858 SUPREt.lE COURT REPORTS (I!Ju4] VOL.
latter offence, the High Court could not act upon
that evidence to r~cord an order of conviction on the
charge for the offence of forging a valuable security.
We arc unable to accept this argument.
Forging a
valuable security and presentation of that valuable
security for registration are two distinct offences.
In
support of the case that the appellants were guilty of
forging a valuable security the material evidence is
that relating to the making dishonestly or fraudulently
of a false document of the nature of a valuable
security. That evidence consisted of the instructions
given at the time of writing of the document, the
character of the document, its execution, and the
intention of the accust>d in fabricating the document.
The offence of false personation for presenting any
document consisted in the presentation of a document
before the registering authority by a person claiming
to be some one else.
An item of evidence may
corroborate charges for more offences than one : but
acquittal of the accused for one such offences will not
render that item of evidence inadmissible in assessing
the criminality of the accused for another offence
corroborated
thereby.
The question in such a
case is not one of admissibility but of weight to be
given to that e\'idence. The decision of the .Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Ma:ak Klmn v.
King Emperor ('), negatives the submission of the
appellants.
In 1}/a/rJk Khan'.~ case the accused was
charged before the Court of Session for offences of
murder and robbery.
He was acquitted by the Trial
Judge of the offence of robbery and convicted of the
offence of murder. The Hi~h Court in appeal
against the order of conviction relied upon the
evidence which was material to both the charges of
robbery and murder, as corroborative of the guilt of
the accused for the offence of murder.
It was held
by the Judicial Committee that the High Court could
properly accept the evidence as corroborative of the
guilt of the accused for the offence of murder, even
though that evidence was not accepted by the tlial
(I) (19f5) L.R, 72 I.A. 305.
"
1 S.C.It.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
859
Court on the charge of robbery. la considering the
argument that the evidence could not be relied upon
in support of the charge of murder, the Judicial
Committee observed :
"The Sessions Judge, it was said, had acquitted
the appellant of robbery; he was, therefore,
not guilty of that offence; no appeal had been
taken against that acquittal and therefore no
Court was entitled to take into consideration
the allegation
upon which the accusation
of robbery was founded even as corroborative
"evidence" in another case. Their Lordships
cannot accept this contention. The learned
Sessions Judge did not in fact find the accusation
baseless ; he only found the crime not pro\'en.
But even if he had disbelieved the whole story
of the recovery of the stolen property from the
appellant, his finding would not prevent the
High Court from weighing its value and if they
accepted its substantial truth from taking it
into consideration in
determining whether
another crime had been committed or no."
The High Court was therefore not debarred from
founding the order of conviction for the offences
under s. 467 l.P. Code and abetment thereof, of the
appellants upon evidence, which corroborated the
story of the prosecution in support of those charges
merely because that evidence was not accepted by the
Sessions Court in considering the charge against them
of false personation for procuring registration of the
Heba-nama.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1963
Stkendar Sluikh
••
State of West Bengal
Shah, J.