Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010132342013 2025:GAU-AS:13396 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./350/2013 RATHINDRA THAOSEN S/O LATE RABILAL THAOSEN, R/O HAFLONG TOWN NEAR RAILWAY FIELD, P.S. HAFLONG, DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PERMAMENT ADDRESS VILL. LANGTING, P.S. LANGTING, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GUAHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Advocate for the appellant : Ms U Nanda, Amicus Curiae. Advocate for the respondent : Mr R J Baruah, APP Assam Date of Judgment : 18.09.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (N.Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) Heard Ms U Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing Page No.# 2/12 the Judgment dated 05.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao District, Haflong, in GR Case No. 176/2012, convicting the appellant, herein, under Sections 466/420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 4 (four) years imprisonment on both counts and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only, in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 2 (two) months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.03.2009, the appellant, herein, had executed one false General Power of Attorney in the name of Phaijolal Kemprai, son of Late Bidyanon Kemprai and by utilizing the said General Power of Attorney, had received an amount of Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) Only, payable to one Smt Ashu Kemprai, wife and legal heir of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, from the office of the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang. The said information having been received, the Police received Haflong PS Case No. 103/2011, under Sections 466/420 IPC, against the appellant, herein. On the Trial Court having framed a charge under Sections 466/420 IPC, against the appellant, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and demanded to be tried, and accordingly, the trial ensued. 3.1. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses, while the appellant, herein, had examined 2 (two) defence witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court basing on the materials coming on record, had proceeded to convict the appellant, herein, under Sections 466/420IPC and sentenced him as noticed hereinabove. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present appeal. Page No.# 3/12 4. Ms U Nanda, learned Amicus Curiae, by taking this Court through the evidences adduced in the matter by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, has submitted that the signature of Phaijolal Kemprai, as finding place in the General Power of Attorney was not proved. She further submitted that the death certificate of Phaijolal Kemprai was not exhibited during the trial. She further submitted that the plea taken by the appellant, herein, that the said process was so adopted with the consent of Smt Ashu Kemprai, who was the wife and legal heir of Phaijolal Kemprai and the money so drawn was handed over to her was not considered by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned Judgment. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the learned Trial Court, without considering as to whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were established against the appellant, herein, proceeded to convict the appellant in the matter. Similarly, she submits that the ingredients of Section 466 IPC were also not established against the appellant, herein, from the evidences coming on record in the matter. Accordingly, she submits that on an overall consideration of the evidences coming on record, the appellant, herein is liable to be acquitted from the charge under Sections 420/466 IPC, as framed against the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court. 6. Per contra, Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted that it is an admitted position that the General Power of Attorney was shown to have been executed by Phaijolal Kemprai on 03.03.2009. However, the executant had already passed away on 22.02.2009. Accordingly, it is clear that the appellant, herein, had forged the signature of the deceased in the said General Power of Attorney to Page No.# 4/12 make unlawful gain for himself. Mr Baruah has submitted that the evidences coming on record clearly established the offence committed by the appellant, herein, under Sections 420/466 Indian Penal Code, beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court would not call for any interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available on record. 8. For considering the rival submissions as advanced by the parties to the proceeding, this Court is of the view that the evidences coming on record would be mandated to be noticed. 9. PW-1, Ajit Kumar Biswas, a bank official of the United Bank of India, had deposed that on a requisition being received from the Police, he had confirmed that an amount of Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Six) Only, was credited to the account of the appellant, herein, on 22.05.2009, vide Cheque No. 63456, dated 08.05.2009. 10. PW-2, Manga Vaiphei also deposed with regard to the deposit of Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Six) Only, in the account of the appellant on 22.05.2009, vide Cheque No. 63456, dated 08.05.2009. 11. PW-3, Ajay Chakraborty, an Advocate, had deposed that on 03.03.2009, during Court hours, the appellant along with the another person had appeared before him and required preparation of one General Power of Attorney. The person accompanying the appellant, herein, identified himself to be Phaijolal Page No.# 5/12 Kemprai. PW-3 further deposed that the General Power of Attorney was so prepared in favour of the appellant, herein, in respect of work order issued by the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang. He also deposed to have put his signature in the said Power of Attorney, as a witness. Thereafter, the Power of Attorney was authenticated by the then ADC, J K Bhuyan, on 03.03.2009. PW-3 further deposed that he did not know Phaijolal Kemprai personally, and also does not remember if any photo of Phaijolal Kemprai was affixed on the body of the General Power of Attorney, at the time of its execution. 12. PW-4, Amal Chandra Borah, the Investigating Officer in the matter had deposed that on a WT message being received in the matter from the Officer- In-Charge, Maibang P S, he had seized one General Power of Attorney from the Cashier of the office of the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang, and had prepared a seizure list in the matter, which was exhibited. 13. PW-5, Bikash Sarkar, had deposed that he was a witness to the seizure of the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the appellant in the matter. 14. PW-6, PW-7 had also deposed that they were witnesses to the seizure of the Power of Attorney from the Cashier Bikash Sarkar, (PW-5). 15. PW-8, Ronjoy Thaosen, had deposed that he was a Health Educator at Langting PHC and had, on verification of the records of the birth and death register of Langting PHC, had ascertained that a death certificate of Late Phaijolal Kemprai of Sibraipura was issued from Langting PHC vide Registration Page No.# 6/12 No. 16/09, dated 07.07.09. 16. PW-9, SI Chitra Rn. Buragohain, the Investigating Officer in the matter, had deposed that the he had arrested the appellant, herein, and had forwarded him to Haflong Court. He further deposed to have seized an original death certificate of Phaijolal Kemprai being produced by his wife, Smt Ashu Kemprai. He executed the seizure list so prepared in the matter. He further deposed that he had sent Smt Ashu Kemprai, to Haflong Court for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. He deposed that on conclusion of the investigation, he had handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-In-Charge, Haflong, as he was transferred from the Police Station. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not verified the death certificate of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, with the records maintained with the Registrar of Births and Deaths. 17. PW-10, Smt Ashu Kemprai, deposed that she was the wife of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, who was a contractor. She further deposed that her husband had died without receiving payment against contract works executed by him. She had accordingly, approached the officers for receiving payment due to her late husband, although initially, the said payment was not made, subsequently, she was informed that one Rathindra Thaosen had received the cheque on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed by her husband. She deposed that on receiving the said information she had lodged an FIR against the appellant, herein. She also deposed that the Police had seized the death certificate of her late husband, from her. During her cross-examination, she had, inter alia, deposed that after the death of her husband, one Dwijendra Langtha and Chandra Kanta Hakmosa had come to her residence and had taken away from her, all the papers relating to the contract works executed by her husband, with an Page No.# 7/12 assurance that all the pending official works relating to the contract works of her husband would be accomplished by them. She further deposed that she had not approached the appellant, herein, for money. However, she deposed that she had stated to the Magistrate that about one year earlier, she had approached the appellant, herein, over phone for financial help, which he had refused. She deposed that she refused to accept the suggestion that she had received payment from Rathindra Thaosen, which he had sent to her. 18. PW-11, Rathindra Thaosen, PW-12, Nikasi Thaosen, deposed that they were witnesses to the seizure of the original death certificate of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, and PW-11 was also a witness to the seizure of the photocopy of the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased Phaijolal Kemprai. 19. PW-13 deposed that he was, at the relevant point of time, working as a Circle Inspector, Dima Hasao District, and the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao had endorsed the Haflong PS Case No. 103/2011, to him for further investigation. He submitted that on conclusion of the investigation and prima facie case against the appellant, herein, having been found, he had submitted the charge sheet against him under Sections 420/466 IPC. During his cross- examination, PW-13 deposed that he ascertained from the appellant, herein, about his signature appearing in the seized Power of Attorney, and the same was confirmed by the appellant, but as regards the signature of the executant, he could not give any satisfactory reply. He further deposed that he had not ascertained as to who had actually put the signature of Phaijolal Kemprai, as executant in the Power of Attorney. He also deposed that the appellant, herein, had not written the name of Phaijolal Kemprai. He denied the suggestion that the appellant, herein, had not forged the Power of Attorney, as he had not Page No.# 8/12 signed the name of Phaijolal Kemprai, as executant and was falsely implicated. He further denied the suggestion that the appellant, herein, had made payment to Smt Ashu Kemprai, of the amount he had received on the strength of the Power of Attorney. 20. On conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant, herein, was examined under Section 313 CrPC, by the learned trial Court. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant stated that he had put his signature as an Attorney Holder only after the Power of Attorney was prepared by Smt Ashu Kemprai and others. He further stated that he, on receipt of the payment, had handed over the money to Smt Asu Kemprai through Sambhu Kemprai and she received the payment in presence of Nabin Kemprai, at Langting. He further disclosed that deceased Phaijolal Kemprai was his friend and he had done this only to help his widow, Smt Ashu Kemprai and her children and had no intention to cheat anybody. 21. Sambhu Kemprai had deposed as DW-1, during the trial, and during his deposition, he had stated that on being approached by Smt Ashu Kemprai, for help in receiving payment of money, receivable from the office of Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang, the appellant, herein, had collected the money amounting to Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) Only, and handed over the same to him at Haflong, which he had handed over to Smt Ashu Kemprai at Lungting, in presence of Nabin Kemprai. He deposed that Smt Ashu Kemprai had falsely implicated the appellant, at the instance of others, although she had received the payment from him. During his cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that he had not obtained any receipt from Smt Ashu Kemprai, after making the payment to her. Page No.# 9/12 He deposed that she being the wife of his uncle, Phaijolal Kemprai, he believed her as his own person. 22. Nabin Kemprai deposed as DW-2 in the matter and supported the deposition made by DW-1, Sambhu Kemprai. He deposed that he was present when Sambhu Kemprai made payment to Smt Ashu Kemprai and the amount of Rs. 15,696/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) Only. He further deposed that the amount was given by the appellant, herein, to Sambhu Kemprai, for making payment to Smt Ashu Kemprai. He also deposed that Smt Ashu Kemprai had falsely implicated Rathindra Thaosen, at the instance of others. During his cross-examination, DW-2 deposed that Sambhu Kemprai (DW-1) had not obtained any receipt from Smt Asu Kemprai, while making payment and that he knew Sambhu Kemprai and Smt Ashu Kemprai were related and on good faith, no receipt was obtained from her. 23. A perusal of the evidences coming on record would go to reveal that Phaijolal Kemprai had passed away on 22.02.2009 and his death was registered with the authorities. The General Power of Attorney was executed on 03.03.2009, and therein, Phaijolal Kemprai was shown as the executant. In the General Power of Attorney, the appellant, herein had signed as the Attorney of Phaijolal Kemprai. The signature of the appellant appearing in the Power of Attorney, is not denied and rather, accepted by the appellant, during his deposition. The General Power of Attorney having been shown to be executed on 03.03.2009, after the death of Phaijolal Kemprai, occasioning on 22.02.2009, the said General Power of Attorney, admittedly, is a forged one. It is seen that the appellant, herein had utilized the said forged General Power of Attorney for receiving the contractual dues receivable by Late Phaijolal Kemprai, from the Page No.# 10/12 office of the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang. It is also brought to the forefront that the cheque of Rs. 15,696/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) Only, issued from the office of the Executive Engineer, North NC Hills Division (Irrigation), Maibang, against the contractual dues receivable by Late Phaijolal Kemprai, was received by the appellant, herein, on the strength of the said forged General Power of Attorney. 24. Further, the projection of the prosecution witnesses, including Smt Ashu Kemprai, PW-10, is to the effect that the contractual dues of Late Phaijolal Kemprai, as received by the appellant, herein, on the strength of the forged Power of Attorney, was never paid to her. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, had stated that he had, on receipt of the said amount, paid the said amount to Smt Ashu Kemprai, through Sambhu Kemprai (DW-1). Sambhu Kemprai (DW-1) had, during his deposition, deposed to have handed over the money received from the appellant, herein, to Smt Ashu Kemprai, in the presence of one Nabin Kemprai. However, he deposed that he had not obtained any receipt for the same from Smt Ashu Kemprai. DW-2, Nabin Kemprai had also supported the deposition of DW-1 that the money was handed over to Smt Ashu Kemprai, in his presence, however, no receipt was obtained in the matter by Sambhu Kemprai. The said evidence as adduced by the appellant as well as the defence witnesses, does not inspire confidence, inasmuch, as the same is not supported by the evidence of Smt Ashu Kemprai. Further, the manner in which the said amount was received by the appellant, herein, which admittedly was on the basis of the forged General Power of Attorney, this Court is of the considered view that the plea as raised by the defence in the matter, would not merit an acceptance. This Court finds that from the evidences coming on record, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, is fully established against the Page No.# 11/12 appellant, herein. Further, the evidences coming on record also establishes the offence under Section 466 IPC, against the appellant, herein. Accordingly, the charge levelled against the appellant, herein, under Sections 466/420 IPC, is to be held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant, herein, by the learned trial Court, in view of above conclusions reached by this Court, would not mandate an interference. 25. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the offence was committed on 03.03.2009, by the appellant, herein. Long 16 (sixteen) years have elapsed since the date of the said incident. Further, this Court has also noticed the contentions raised in the matter by the defence witnesses. This Court also notices that the appellant, herein, was not involved in the commission of a similar offence, either prior to the commission as involved in the present proceedings, and/or during the proceedings so instituted in the matter after 03.03.2009. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court had not considered the benefits extendable to an accused under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court finds that in view of the lapse of considerable period of time from the date of commission of the offence by the appellant, herein, and also considering the fact that the appellant, herein, has litigating the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, and presently, in the instant appeal, before this Court, this Court finds that the appellant being a first time offender was entitled to be extended with the benefit of the provision under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 26. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case, wherein the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is to be extended to the appellant, herein, by this Court, in Page No.# 12/12 exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appellant, herein, is extended with the benefit under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, accordingly, sentence is modified to that effect and it is provided that instead of sending him to jail, he be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court, having only modified the sentence pertaining to imprisonment, the sentence of payment of fine Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only, in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 2 (two) months, as imposed by the learned trial Court, is not being interfered with and the petitioner is required to comply with the same. 27. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 2 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each, along with personal bond before the learned trial Court and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the appellant, within a period of 1 (one) month from today. The appellant shall also, along with submission of the bond, deposit the fine amount, as required, hereinabove. 28. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 29. Send down the records to the learned trial Court, along with a copy of this Judgment and Order, for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant