Bangalore District Court
The Registrar General vs K.Usha Yogendranath W/O on 15 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2015
PRESENT:
Sri M.Chandrashekar Reddy, B.A., L L.B.
C.C. NO.531/2002
Complainant : The Registrar General,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore.
-V/s-
Accused : K.Usha Yogendranath W/o
Yogendranath, 55 yrs,
Door No.4-5-14, AJJARAKAD,
UDUPI.
Date of offence : 30-01-2002
Offence : U/S 465, 466, 471 I.P.C.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Order : 15-07-2015
2 CC No.531/2002
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 Cr.P.C.
This case arises out of the complaint lodged by Hon'ble
Registrar Judicial on behalf of Hon'ble Registrar General,
High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, under Section 195
read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. against accused, for the
offences punishable under Section 465, 466 and 471 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows-
a) Accused was the plaintiff in a Suit bearing OS
No.95/97 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Udupi.
As against order dated 28-01-2002 passed on IA
No.XVIII in the said suit, the accused herein
preferred CRP No.576/2002 before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The
accused produced a typed copy of portion of the
order dated 28-01-2002 passed on IA No.XVIII.
The accused had also filed IA No.I before the
3 CC No.531/2002
Hon'ble High Court seeking dispensation of
production of certified copy of the orders passed
on IA No.XVIII by the trial court. The Hon'ble
High Court had granted interim order in favour
of the accused herein.
b) Upon the appearance of respondent in said CRP,
the Hon'ble High Court noticed that the accused
had produced only a typed copy of the operative
portion and subsequently had produced the
certified copy of orders passed on IA No.XVIII by
the trial court, which did not tally with each
other. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
01-03-2002 has opined that the accused has
willfully and knowingly filed a truncated copy of
the orders of trial court, only to gain an interim
relief and that the accused had also sworn to
false affidavit. Further, it was also noticed that
the accused had indulged in falsification of the
court records. As such the Hon'ble Court
4 CC No.531/2002
directed the Registrar Judicial to lodge a
complaint against accused for playing fraud on
the court and indulging in falsification of court
records.
c) Accordingly, the Registrar Judicial on behalf of
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka has
lodged the instant complaint under Section 195
R/W Section 200 Cr.P.C. against accused for the
offences under Section 465, 466 & 471 of IPC.
3. It is to be noted here that, acting under Section
200(a) of Cr.P.C., the examination of complainant was
dispensed with by the court, and cognizance of the
alleged offences was taken. Process came to be issued
against accused, and the accused gave appearance before
the court on 21-03-2009 and she was enlarged on bail.
Thereafter, my learned predecessor, on the basis of
materials placed before the Court, has framed Charge
against accused for the offences punishable under
5 CC No.531/2002
Section 465, 466 & 471 of I.P.C. and read over &
explained to accused in the language known to her. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Two
witnesses came to be examined on behalf of prosecution,
and documents as per Ex.P1 to 7 came to be marked in
order to prove the case of prosecution. The statement of
accused as required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein the accused denied the case of prosecution in
toto, and opted not to adduce any defence evidence.
4. Heard arguments, and also perused the written
arguments filed on behalf of accused.
5. The point that arises for my consideration is-
Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that, the accused while
filing CRP before the Hon'ble High Court
against the orders passed on IA No.XVIII in
OS No.95/97 by Senior Civil Judge, Udupi,
has knowingly & with dishonest intention
to commit forgery has produced only
6 CC No.531/2002
portion of the orders passed by trial court
and not the entire text of order sheet in
order to obtain interim relief by making it
to appear to Hon'ble High Court that the
said portion of forged typed copy is the true
copy of impugned order passed on 28-01-
2002 by suppressing the entire text of said
order, which is proceedings of court of
justice, and also sought for dispensation of
the certified copy of order passed on the
said IA, and fraudulently & dishonestly
used the said forged typed copy of the
portion of order dated 28-01-2002 passed
by said court as genuine document, and
thereby committed the offences punishable
under Section 465, 466 & 471 of I.P.C., as
per the charges leveled against her?
6. My answer to the above point is in the NEGATIVE for
the following.
REASONS
7. Let me first consider as to what the offences under
Section 465, 466 & 471 of I.P.C. deals with. Section
465 IPC deals with punishment for forgery. Section
7 CC No.531/2002
466 IPC deals with Forgery of record of Court or of
public register etc. Section 471 IPC deals with using as
genuine a forged document or electronic record.
8. Further, Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC as
under-
Whoever makes any false documents or false
electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the
public or to any person, or to support any claim or
title, or to cause any person to part with property,
or to enter into any express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery
Furthermore, Making a false document is defined
under Section 464 IPC as under-
A person is said to make a false document or false
electronic record -
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or
part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part
of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on an electronic
record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
document or the authenticity of the electronic
signature,
8 CC No.531/2002
with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document or part of document, electronic
record or electronic signature was made, signed,
sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made, signed,
sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly - Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record
in any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with electronic signature either
by himself or by any other person, whether such
person be living or dead at the time of such
alteration; or
Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a
document or an electronic record or to affix his
electronic signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that
by reason of deception practised upon him, he does
not know the contents of the document or electronic
record or the nature of the alteration
9. The allegation against accused is that she has
produced the truncated copy of the orders passed on IA
No.18 dated 28-01-2002 of the Senior Civil Judge, Udupi,
and also practiced fraud on the Hon'ble High Court in
obtaining a favourable interim order in CRP
9 CC No.531/2002
No.576/2002. I have scrutinized the oral, documentary
evidence placed on record by the prosecution.
10. It is not in dispute that the trial court in OS
No.95/97 passed orders on IA No.18 dated 28-01-2002,
and being aggrieved of the same, the accused preferred
CRP No.576/2002 on 30-01-2002. That the accused had
produced typed true copy of the order sheet dated 28-01-
2002 in OS No.95/97, while preferring the said CRP.
Also that, she filed IA No.I before the Hon'ble High Court
seeking for dispensation of production of the certified
copy of separate orders passed on IA No.18, wherein the
said IA No.1 came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Registrar
Judicial, who granted four weeks time for the accused to
produce the certified copy of the full orders on IA No.18.
There upon the matter came to be placed before the
Hon'ble High Court, and an interim order is passed in
her favour.
10 CC No.531/2002
11. The evidence would reveal that on 10-02-2002, the
accused produced the certified copy of the said order
along with memo in the office of Hon'ble High Court. On
receipt of notice in the said CRP, the respondent
appeared and contended before the Hon'ble High Court
that the full text of IA No.18 was deliberately not placed
before the Hon'ble High Court. Upon considering all the
facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court vide
order dated 01-03-2002 has noticed that the accused has
wantonly done the acts as per the charges leveled against
her, and directed the Hon'ble Registrar Judicial to lodge
complaint and take action against accused.
12. Here in this case, the question for consideration
before the court would be whether the accused had
wantonly produced a truncated copy of the order of the
trial court, and thereby fabricated records and misled the
Hon'ble High Court. Before discussing further, it will be
useful for us to know the contents of Ex.P4 as well as
11 CC No.531/2002
Ex.P1. Ex.P4 is the true copy of typed order sheet dated
28-01-2002 in OS No.95/97, wherein it reads as follows-
28.01.2002
Plff. : A.K.G.P
D10,11 : K.N.S.P.
D1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 : H.N.S.P.:
IA XVIII allowed without costs and
permission is granted to 12th Defendant
to construct compound wall to her
property covered by Sy.No.83/9 of
Moodanidambur village, Udupi Taluk on
the Eastern and Southern sides as per
the license dt.22.11.2001 granted in Cl.(i)
BA 101/2001-02 issued to the 12th
Defendant by the Udupi Town
Municipality with a condition to
dismantle the said compound wall if
Plaintiff succeeds ans if her share comes
within the area in which the compound
wall is constructed or raised as per the
approved plan.
Posted for objection to I.A.No.14 to 17 on
8-2-2002.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-
28.01.2002
Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Udupi
12 CC No.531/2002
Further, the operative portion of Ex.P1 reads as follows.
ORDER
In the result, I.A.No.18 is allowed without costs and permission is granted to the 12th defendant to construct compound wall to her property covered by Sy.No.83/9 of Moodanidambur village, Udupi Taluk on the Eastern and Southern sides as per the License dated 22-11-2001 granted in Cl(1) BA.101/2001-2002 issued to the 12th defendant by the Udupi Town Municipality with a condition to dismantle the said compound wall if plaintiff succeeds and if her share comes within the area in which compound wall is constructed or raised as per approved plan
13. The witnesses examined in this case have categorically deposed in their evidence that accused had filed IA No.I seeking for dispensation of production of certified copy of orders on IA No.18, and that it came to be allowed. It is to be noted here that, in Ex.P6 - in its order dated 01-03-2002, the Hon'ble High Court has extracted the portion of affidavit filed by accused in support of said IA No.I, and the same reads as follows- 13 CC No.531/2002
"I say I have filed the typed copy of the impugned order on I.A.XVIII dated 28.01.2002 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Udupi. I have applied for the certified copy of the same. I shall produce the certified copy of the document when I receive the same. Therefore, I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Udupi on I.A.XVIII in O.S. No.95/1997 dated 28.01.2002 in the interest of justice"
Further, PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted in clear terms as follows-
"PÀqÀvÀUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀÇtð ªÀiÁ»w EzÉ. ¤¦ 1 jAzÀ 7£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ zÁR¯ÉU¼À À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è CAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¤¦ 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 gÀ°è£À DzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÀåvÁå¸À EzÉAiÀiÁ CAzÀgÉ ¤¦ 1 gÀ°è£À PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦ 4gÀ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀaÑ£À PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀ JgÀqÀÄ MAzÉà DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåvÁå¸À E®è"
The above admission of PW2 in his cross-examination reveals that there is no difference in the operative portion of the order passed in Ex.P1 as well as the typed order in Ex.P4, and that they are one and the same. Also this 14 CC No.531/2002 court has compared the final orders in Ex.P1 & 4, and I am satisfied that they are one and the same.
14. Hence, upon considering the above materials placed on record, it is very clear that the accused had sought for dispensation of production of certified copy of IA No.18, and had produced the true typed copy of the said order. She had probably noted down the contents of order as typed in order sheet by the trial court, and reproduced the same as per Ex.P4. The very Ex.P4 itself would show that it is the true copy of order sheet. Within two days she approached before Hon'ble High Court, and it is clear that by that time, the certified copy of the entire order on Ex.P1 was not ready and at a later stage on 10-02-2002, after obtaining the same, she had placed the same before the Hon'ble High Court.
15. Apart from the facts of case, it is to be noted here that none of the ingredients for constituting the offences under Section 465, 466 & 471 IPC are forthcoming in the 15 CC No.531/2002 case. There should be mens rea i.e., guilty mind from the beginning, and with the said mind, the accused must have perpetuated the criminal acts. The accused has neither acted with any dishonest intention nor created any fraudulent records. She had not claimed that Ex.P4 is a non-speaking order of trial court. There is no evidence that the accused with any dishonest intention had suppressed about Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was not issued to her as on 30-01-2002. She could secure it only at a later stage and as undertaken by her, she produced Ex.P1 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka within time. On considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am of the humble opinion that, the accused has neither produced any truncated copy of IA No.18, nor has fabricated any records before the Hon'ble High Court. In other words, I am of the further humble opinion that this case is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I have no other alternative, but to answer the Point raised 16 CC No.531/2002 for my consideration in the Negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 465, 466 & 471 of I.P.C.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stand cancelled and set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on Computer. The computerized print out taken by him is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this day i.e., 15-07-2015).
(M.Chandrashekar Reddy), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
PW1 : Hussain Shariff
PW2 : Ramakrishna Bhat
17 CC No.531/2002
List of Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Certified Copy of Orders on IA No.XVIII in OS No.95/97 Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of IA No.II in CRP No.576/2002 Ex.P3 : Certified Copy of Affidavit in CRP Ex.P4 : Certified Copy of Typed Order Sheet in OS No.95/97 Ex.P5 : Letter dated 17-08-2002 Ex.P6 : Copy of Orders in CRP No.576/2002 Ex.P7 : Complaint List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined on behalf of defence:
None List of documents marked on behalf of defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.18 CC No.531/2002
15-07-2015 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 465, 466 & 471 of I.P.C. The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stand cancelled and set at liberty.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.