1972 (1) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 82(d) of the Indian Registration Act
2. Interpretation of Section 83 of the Act regarding prosecution for offences under the Act
3. Whether a private person can initiate a prosecution without permission under Section 83

Analysis:

The judgment in question pertains to an appeal against a conviction under Section 82(d) of the Indian Registration Act. The appellant was convicted by the High Court for abetment of an offence under Section 82 of the Act, following a complaint filed by Ramnagina Rai alleging forgery of a Zerpeshgi deed. The High Court overturned the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, citing clear evidence of the appellant's involvement in the forgery. The appellant argued that the complaint was invalid due to lack of permission under Section 83 of the Act. Section 83 allows prosecution for offences under the Act with the permission of specified officers when the offence is known to the Registering Officer in his official capacity. The appellant contended that this permission was necessary for a valid complaint. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 83 and held that it does not prohibit private individuals from initiating a prosecution without the mentioned permission. The Court emphasized that the section is permissive and enabling, not mandatory, and applies only when the offence is known to the Registering Officer in his official capacity.

The Court referenced various precedents to support its interpretation of Section 83. Cases from Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Patna, Jammu and Kashmir, and Allahabad High Courts were cited to establish that the section does not restrict private individuals from initiating prosecutions under the Act without the specified permission. The Court rejected the restrictive interpretations given by the Rangoon High Court and the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that such interpretations would unduly limit the ability of private individuals to seek redress for offences under the Act. The judgment highlighted that the language of Section 83 is permissive and does not intend to prohibit private prosecutions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction under Section 82(d) of the Act. The Court held that the interpretation of Section 83 allowing private individuals to initiate prosecutions without specific permission was in line with the legislative intent and previous judicial decisions. The judgment clarified that Section 83 is enabling rather than prohibitory, ensuring that private individuals have the right to seek legal recourse for offences under the Indian Registration Act without unnecessary restrictions.