Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(10) If a person applies for a caste certificate and the same is not issued by the competent authority and he prepares a false document then he commits an offence of forgery. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the certificate dated 08.08.2008 was issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.). Though it was issued without the sufficient evidence, but that document was not forged in the eyes of law. It was a genuine certificate though issued without any sufficient basis. In this context, the definition of forgery as prescribed in Section 463 of IPC is hereby reproduced for ready reference:

(11) After considering the provisions of Section 463 and 464 of IPC, it should be clear while prosecuting a person for forgery that it is not sufficient that the text of the document is false but it is to be established that the accused has made a false document as per the conditions given in Section 464 of IPC and the purpose of making such a false document should fall within the purview of Section 463. If someone induces the concerned officer to issue a particular certificate and the text of the certificate is not correct but if the certificate is issued by the competent authority, it cannot be said that the person either made false document or involved in the conspiracy of making false documents.

(12) If the conduct of the applicants is examined in the light of Section 464 of IPC then it would be clear from the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 that neither signature nor seals etc. of Sub-Divisional Officer were forged but the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna himself and therefore it was not a false document in the eyes of law according to the provisions of Section 464 of IPC. Hence, it cannot be said that it was a forged document. In this connection, the judgment passed by the 11 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other Apex Court in the case of "Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar" [(2005) 8 SCC 751], is worth mentioning, in which it is observed that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property, which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, the execution of such document [purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner] is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of IPC. Similarly, in this context, the judgment/order passed by the single Bench of this Court in the case of "State Government, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hafizulrahman" [AIR 1952 Nag 12], in which it is laid that for the offence of forgery, the document must be purported to have been signed, made or sealed by a person who did not in fact do it. The fact that a document contains false recitals or statements which induced persons who deceive to part with or deliver the property would not make it an offence of forgery. (13) In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) and judgment/order passed by the single Bench of this Court in the case of State Government, Madhya Pradesh (supra), if caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 is examined then certificate was issued by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna though its contents were not correct because it was issued without sufficient evidence. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, the document in question cannot be said to be a forged document in the light of provisions contained under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC. When prima facie the document under challenge is not a 12 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other forged document then the complaint could not have been registered for any offence relating to forgery either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC. Both the Courts below have committed an error of law in not considering the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 that it was not at all a forged document and therefore, complaint could not be registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC or similar inferior offence of forgery either directly or with help of Section 120-B of IPC. (14) The complaint has also been filed for the offence under Section 420 of IPC against all of the applicants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent Komal Prasad Shakya that all the applicants except Rajendra Singh, specifically Amreek Singh, Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain had executed either an affidavit or issued a caste certificate in favour of the applicant Rajendra Singh for which they were not competent to issue and, therefore, they participated in the crime of applicant Rajendra Singh and they were involved in the criminal conspiracy. However, it would be apparent by status of applicant Harvindra Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain that they were the office bearers of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.) and ward member of the concerned ward, where the applicant Rajendra Singh had resided, respectively. Though they did not have any record relating to the caste of their members or residents in that ward but they were enjoying a social status. Therefore, under due to their social obligation in their respective fields if they had analyzed the evidence produced before them and if they had issued such certificate relating to the caste of 13 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other applicant Rajendra Singh then it cannot be said that they were involved in the criminal conspiracy along with applicant Rajendra Singh. It is possible that Harveer Singh who was the office bearer of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.) had obtained knowledge from various members and devotees of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh committee that the applicant Rajendra Singh was "Sansi" by caste and therefore if he had issued a certificate then it may be his bona fide social act and therefore it cannot be said that he was involved in the crime of cheating. When the Magisterial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Patwari and a Medical Officer who had also believed the evidence produced or collected before them then on the same analogy no case could be registered against the applicant Harveer Singh who was the office bearer of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.). Situation of applicant Smt. Kiran Jain is similar to that of the applicant Harveer Singh that being a representative of the ward or a ward member, if she had relied upon the various documents and it was the necessity for the application of caste certificate to be filed before the competent authority, she would have given such a certificate. She gave a certificate by social obligation of virtue of her post on the basis of documents produced before her and therefore on the similar analogy as applied in the case of Harveer Singh it cannot be said prima facie that Smt. Kiran Jain was involved in the criminal conspiracy for offence of cheating. The courts below did not consider such a situation while passing the orders and 14 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other a criminal complaint was wrongly registered against the applicants Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC. (15) Conduct of the applicant Rajendra Singh and his father Amreek Singh is different from applicants Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain. The applicant Rajendra Singh had filled up various forms during the tenure of his academic career by mentioning his case to be "Sikh" and suddenly he and his father have started to claim that they were "Sansi" by caste. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent - Komal Prasad Shakya that the overt act of these two persons falls within the purview of offence under Section 420 of IPC. The applicant- Amreek Singh helped the applicant Rajendra Singh in getting a false certificate of his caste and therefore he was involved in the criminal conspiracy with the applicant Rajendra Singh. However, as discussed above that the forefathers of applicant Rajendra Singh had migrated from Pakistan. Thereafter, they resided in the territory of Amritsar District for 3-4 years and thereafter they again migrated to Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is discussed earlier that the legal literacy is required amongst the public in general. If the overt act of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna is considered while issuance of caste certificate, it appears that he was also not aware of the rules framed by the State Government for issuance of a caste certificate and therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant Rajendra Singh and his father would have received the knowledge of their caste being scheduled when the applicant Rajendra Singh 15 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other had already grown up and if applicant Rajendra Singh had applied for the caste certificate and applicant Amreek Singh had given an affidavit in support of that application then directly it cannot be said that their such conduct was of cheating or of conspiracy to commit cheating. (16) In this connection, the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee should be examined with criminal aspect. In that order, it was mentioned that various witnesses were examined. A letter was written to the Superintendent of Police, Guna (M.P.) to enquire about the caste certificate of the applicant Rajendra Singh from the Tahsil Office at Amritsar. Sub- Inspector Mr. Dinesh Sharma had gone to that Tahsil Office and he confirmed that the applicant was "Sansi" by caste, however, High Power Scrutiny Committee has referred the various rules and it relied upon the statement given by the then Sub-Divisional Officer Shri D.K. Jain who issued the caste certificate that he did not follow the procedure of issuance of a permanent caste certificate and consequently that caste certificate was cancelled and forfeited. In this connection, a Circular No.,Q&7&13@2004@vk-iz-@,d dated 11.07.2005 may be perused. In para 6.6 of that circular, it was clearly mentioned as to how a permanent caste certificate can be issued. A detailed procedure was given for that purpose. As per para 6.7 of that circular a provisional caste certificate can be issued on the basis of affidavits etc. Hence, it was for the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna to adopt the procedure as given in para 6.6 of that circular before issuance of the caste certificate and the High Power 16 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other Scrutiny Committee has cancelled the certificate mainly because Sub-Divisional Officer did not adopt the procedure as required.