Forgery

Person bringing into existence a document, bearing a certain date, but brought into existence on a later date, by antedating it, or having forged signatures or thumb impressions of the executants of the documents or having different contents from the admitted document is guilty of the offence of forgery under S. 465, P.P.C.

Allegations levelled against the accused persons pertained to preparing fake documents, making forged entries in record, misappropriation of a huge amount from Government treasury and fixing stamps and signs of different persons including Sub-Registrar

Principal accused was the registration clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar who had misused his assignment

Characters of accused persons had become apparent after investigation and specific roles had been attributed to them, which were corroborated by documentary evidence as well as statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Offence with which the accused persons were charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

In such like cases refusal of bail was a rule and acceptance was an exception

Accused persons had failed to point out any special feature which could bring their cases in any of the exceptions

Accused persons had also failed to substantiate that their involvement in the cases was a product of mala fide or ill-will on the part of complainants or investigation agency

Case of one of the accused persons was different from others as he was only a marginal witness of power of attorney and he was not involved in other chain of offences, as such, he was admitted to bail

Bail applications of other accused persons were dismissed.

Allegation against accused was that he prepared forged documents including agriculture pass book and average sale certificate and recommended for loan

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years imprisonment

Validity

Specific allegation existed against accused but prosecution failed to procure report of handwriting expert to establish forgery on the part of accused

Comparison/observation of Trial Court could not be made basis for passing conviction against a person, which even otherwise was dangerous without aid of expert

Conviction based on such comparison was unjustified

High Court suspended sentence awarded to accused and admitted him to bail

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Vehicle with a non-genuine number plate had allegedly been recovered from the possession of accused, which he claimed to be in his ownership

Record did not show that the forged number plate had been prepared by the accused himself with the intention to support his title over the said vehicle

Complainant had admitted that he had neither recovered the vehicle with the forged number plate, nor had seen the same

Other recovery witness who had prepared the recovery memos did not say as to from whom the vehicle having the forged number plate was recovered

No evidence was available on record to establish the case against the accused

Both the judgments of courts below were arbitrary and suffered from gross illegality and miscarriage of justice and the same were set aside

Accused was acquitted accordingly.

Prosecution witnesses having not been harassed, bail ought not to have been cancelled, however, in case any cogent material before the Trial Court would come which would show that the prosecution witnesses were being harassed or being prevented from coming to the court to give evidence, then the Trial Court would be at liberty to consider cancellation of bail.

Petitioner though not found to be directly linked with the preparation of fraudulent and bogus result card, yet was not entitled to discretionary relief

Findings of fact rendered against petitioner by two Courts, viz. the Appellate and Revisional Courts did not suffer from any infirmity

Petitioner, though not found to be directly associated with the preparation of forged and bogus result card, yet tried to use it for his benefit and objectively none else could have benefited from the forgery and fraud if the same would not have been detected

Petitioner, thus, could not be absolved of his responsibility on the basis of his plea of non-association with the preparation of result card

No justification was pointed out for setting aside concurrent findings of facts which were otherwise unexceptionable

Very fact that petitioner tried to use the bogus and fraudulent result card for his benefit would deprive him of any discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal.

Burden of proof on party pleading forgery is indeed heavy Essential ingredients for proof of forgery and even of fraud is bad intention and dishonesty-Burden cannot even be discharged on premises of presumptive proof Proof has to be of a very high degree excluding all possibilities of alteration having been made innocently or in normal circumstances-In order to deprive a person of his rights on account of forgery, it has to be affirmatively established that he committed forgery-Evidence in proof of forgery has to be almost at par with evidence required in criminal cases.-[Burden of proof].

O. XV11, r. 3-Application of O. XVII, r. 3-Ex parte decree Defendant getting adjournment twice for filing written statement but failing to file same-Defendant's defence struck off and case adjourned-Court recording evidence on such date and passing ex-parte decree-Discretion exercised by Court in passing decree, held, proper- Leave refused in circumstances,-[Adjournment].

S. 409/468/420-Cheeating-Forgery-Criminal Breach of trust by Public Servant-Petitioner throughout acting as Secretary of a Cooperative Society forging resolutions of Society permitting Society to take loan of certain amount from Bank on basis of a pronote to be executed by Society land authorising Bank to pay money to Treasurer of Society-Bogus promote prepared by petitioner and Treasurer of Society authorised to draw money from Bank-One of co-accused posing himself to be such a Treasurer drawing amount on being identified by petitioner to be Treasurer of Society-Petitioner having obtained money from Bank with help of his co-accused by misusing his position through forgery and fraud a clear case of criminal breach of trust, held, made out against him-Acts done by petitioner showing petitioner having dishonestly induced Bank with help of his co-accused, to deliver money to co-accused whom he identified to be real Treasurer of Society, offences of cheating and forgery, held further, also brought home to peti

Ss. 302 & 307 read with S. 300, Exception IV-[Murder-case]Free fight-Private defence, right of-Prosecution witnesses named in first information report and such report promptly made and recorded at police station - High Court re-evaluating evidence and accepting conclusion of trial Court in regard to motive abscondence of accused appellants, at least two of prosecution witnesses being quite independent and disinterested, and presence of all eye-witnesses at spot at crucial moment and rejecting plea of self-defence-Appellants aggressors in view of number of shots fired, advantageous position, and harm done to complainant's party-Both sides though wishing to have a free fight but such wish not materialising and accused appellants in view of their advantageous position frustrating free fight by both parties-Deceased persons on complainant's side not initiating fire first but accused party initiating attack first on seeing complainant party duly armed-Motive for attack by accused party also proved-Abscondence of

S. 477-A-Forgery-Falsification of accounts-Accused Patwari alleged to have made false entries in revenue record posted to village concerned very recently and not knowing A relying on Lambardar's identification of a person produced before him as A, making requisite entry in revenue record-Contention that Patwari should have known as to real A being in custody due to village being very small where every one knew about his neighbour-Such view also taken by Special Judge-Held : Special Judge in taking such view substituted evidence by conjecture particularly when even real A did not claim to know Patwari.

Ss. 409/109 & 467-Criminal misappropriation-Forgery-Government servant entrusted with money to purchase certain goods, fabricating false cash memo. showing inflated quantity of goods at fictitious rate of purchase and thereby misappropriating certain sum-Cash memo. definitely opined by Handwriting Expert to be forged in the handwriting of accused-Expert's opinion corroborated by presence of impression of seal of accused's office on cash memo and such affixation of seal not possible without knowledge and assistance of accused-Accused's guilt, held, satisfactorily established- Petition for leave to appeal rejected.

S. 477-A read with Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 45, 47 & 67-Forgery-Falsification of accounts Proof-Accused denying his signatures on impugned document Prosecution witnesses attesting signatures of accused neither deposing to have seen accused signing nor any documents signed by accused received by them in reply or submitted to them-Requirement of law contemplated by S. 47, Evidence Act, 1872, held, not fulfilled Court, in circumstances, held, should have resorted to provisions of S. 45, Evidence Act, 1872 and referred impugned signatures to Handwriting Expert - Word "acquainted" occurring in S. 47, Evidence Act, 1872, explained.

Forgery Forgery-Fraud-Forged process of Court-Intimating Bank that prohibitory order previously issued to Bank not to pay amount to account-holder, had beets vacated-Measure of protection to Bank who bona fides pays amount to account-holder on strength of forged intimation-Sect of Court on Court processes-Important sign of authenticity-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 56 & 57 (b), illus. (e), S. 114-Strong initial presumption of, genuineness. [Sale of Goods Ac.., (111 of 1930), S. 29-Negotiable Instruments Act (XXV of 18181), Ss. 41, 58, 120, 121 & 122-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 43 & 53].