1. This is an appeal by two persons who have been convicted of Various offences in connection with a fraudulent suit brought in the Munsif''s
Court. The main facts found are that the appellant, Kali Singh, filed a suit against one Pasindh Roy of Kanaila, in the United Provinces, in the Court
of the Munsif of Rampurhat, in the District of Birbhum, in this Province. This suit was based on a hand-note which has been found to have been a
forgery, and to have been fo ged by the second accused, Deb Nath Roy. Kali Singh was charged with having fraudulently used as genuine a forged
document purporting to be a valuable security, punishable u/s 471 of the Penal Code, and also with laving been a member of a criminal conspiracy
for the purpose of fraudulently and dishonestly making a false claim punishable u/s 209, read with Section 120B, of the Penal Code. Deb Nath
was charged with forging a valuable security punishable u/s 467 of the Penal Code, with abetment of the offence of fraudulently using a forged
document punishable u/s 471, read with Section 109, and also with joining in the conspiracy punishable u/s 120B with Section 209 of the Penal
Code. The appellants were convicted on all these charges. Each of these accused is sentenced to three years'' rigorous imprisonment on the
principal charge, u/s 471 of the Penal Code in the case of Kali Singh, and u/s 467 of the Penal Code in the case of Deb Nath. Each of the accused
was further sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment on the conspiracy charge, and Deb Nath was also sentenced to the additional period of
one year''s rigo ous imprisonment on the conviction o abetment of using a forged document.
2. The first point urged on behalf of the appellants is that the trial is bad for want of proper sanction. Under the proviso of Section 196-A o the
Code of Criminal Procedure a sanction under that section for prosecution for criminal conspiracy to commit a non-cognizable offence is not
necessary in the present case, since the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 195 are applicable. But it is contended that there has been no
proper sanction u/s 195. It is said that the sanction is contrary to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of that section as the order of sanction does not
give the necessary particulars. The order of sanction was passed on a petition (Exhibit 3) presented by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police,
and the effective part of the order is that the application be allowed. If this order be read with the application all the details required by Sub-section
(4) have been supplied. We think that the petition and the order should be read together. This was the view taken in the case of Dulloo Singh v.
Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal 65 Ind. Cas. 570 : 49 C. 551 : 23 Cri. L.J. 138 : AIR (1922) (C.) 412, and we think it is the
right view. It is contended that this decision is opposed to earlier decisions on this point. But we cannot find in any of those that have been cited
anything which contradicts the view that the order of sanction and the petition asking for sanction should be read together. All the rulings to which
our attention was directed were to the effect that the omission to give the particulars required by Sub-section (4) of Section 195 renders the
sanction a bad sanction. But they did not deal with the point which arises in this case. It would appear in an earlier case, Baperam Surma v. Gouri
Nath Dutt 29 C. 474 : 10 Ind. Sec. (N.S.) 320 that the learned Judges in discharging the Rule referred to the record of the case, and it would
seem that their order was based on a consideration of the petition with the order, though this is not clearly stated in the report. In another case on
the Original Side of this Court reference was certainly made to the application in order to interpret the order granting sanction since the words used
by the learned Judge, when passing the order, were only ""very well."" This case is Thaddeus v. Janaki Nath Saha 21 Ind. Cas. 172 : 40 C. 423 : 14
Cr. L.J. 572. We, therefore, have no hesitation in following the recent ruling referred to above, and in holding that there is no flaw in the sanction
u/s 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have put the facts clearly before the Jury. The only misdirection in that charge, which is suggested, is as
to the legality of the conviction of Deb Nath u/s 471, read with 109, of the Penal Code, and we find it hard to see what act of abetment of using
the forged document was done by him other than the acts which are covered by his conviction under the other sections. We have also some doubt
as to the legality of separate sentences for all the offences of which the accused were convicted. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer,
however, states that he does not press for upholding that part of the order which directs that the separate sentences passed should run
consecutively. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to deal at length with these points as regards the sentence.
4. In the result, we uphold the convictions o the appellants, and modify the sentences to this extent that, while upholding the terms of each sentence
passed under the respective sections against each of the appellants, we direct that these sentences do run concurrently and not consecutively.