Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A perusal at excerpts of the complaint would clearly indicate the allegation of creation and forgery of documents. The contention is that the change report before the Charity Commissioner inducting the petitioner as a Trustee was effected by way of forged documents, as the resolution letter that forms the part of the changed report before the Charity Commissioner was dated 22-03-2012 bearing No.E-17108/16-05-1997. Reporting the change was done on 22-01-2018 and subsequent order of confirming the reporting in respect of addition and deletion of Trustees was initiated under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel representing the 2nd respondent is that the entire document is seeped in fraud. The report of change which is said to have come about on 09-10-2016 for what had happened on 22-03-2012 reads as follows:

13. Once locus of the complainant is sustained all other facts lead to a solitary unmistakable conclusion that the matter requires a full blown trial. Therefore, undoubtedly, in the realm of disputed questions of fact, the allegations made against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC require trial. Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC which deal with forgery read as follows:

"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
... ... ... ...
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."

Section 467 deals with forgery of valuable security, will etc. A person forging a document which purports to be a valuable security or a Will and receives the benefits out of that is said to have committed forgery. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating and Section 471 using a forged document to be a genuine one. The allegation against the petitioner on the basis of the examination of signatures by Forensic Laboratory albeit private is that they are disputed and they are not the signatures of Maa Manize. Therefore, Section 467 gets prima facie attracted. Section 468 and 471 are the off-shoot of Section 467 of the IPC. If the aforesaid provisions are prima facie met in the complaint, the contention of the petitioner is that those are attributable to accused No.1 and not to him. Insofar as it concerns the petitioner, Section 408 is invoked. Section 408 of the IPC reads as follows: