Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) That the document or electronic record so recovered from the accused is a forged document. The definition of forgery has been incorporated U/s 463 IPC as making of any forged document or an electronic record or part thereof with an intent to cause damage or injury to public or any other person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with any property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with an intent to commit a fraud. The term falsification of document has been defined U/s 464 IPC.

(ii) That the document so recovered from accused was the nature as specified U/s 466 or 467 IPC. The provisions of Section 466 and 467 IPC lays down the aggravated forms of offence of forgery. The provisions of Section 466 IPC deals with forgery related to court record or public documents in the nature of birth registers, baptism record, marriage or burial records etc., whereas, Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable securities in the nature of Will, authorities to adopt son, receipts or acknowledgments of money or property etc.

16. Besides, the accused has also been charged for commission of offence U/ S 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The offence U/S 467 IPC relates to forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security, will etc. This provision makes an act of forgery of document as defined Under section 463 IPC an indictable act entailing punishment for imprisonment extending up to life imprisonment when said act of forgery pertains to documents in the nature of valuable security, Will, adoption authority, authorization for financial transaction, property exchanges. Whereas, Section 468 IPC deals with forgery of documents for the purpose of cheating. This provision makes an act of fabrication of documents as defined U/S 463 IPC, an indictable act entailing punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment when the intention behind the act of such forgery is of using the said document to commit the offence of cheating. The offence under this section does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating, what matters here is the intention or the purpose of the person committing such an act of forgery. Section 471 IPC deals with the offence of using a forged document as a genuine one. In order to hold a person liable for this offence, what is required to be established is that either the accused has himself made a forged document or he was having reason to believe or knowledge that such document was forged and having such knowledge or reason to believe, the accused has used the said document as a FIR NO.226/2009 AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA St. Vs. Surender Pal SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 16:02:01 +0530 genuine one.

19. This court is well conscious of the fact that there lies no embargo in simultaneously appreciating the evidences on record qua the complicity of accused with respect to offence under Section 466 IPC which deals with forgery of court records, public register etc. More specifically it being a minor offence when compared with the offence under Section 467 IPC for which the accused is charged, the appreciation of evidences on record with respect of such offences is completely permissible as per section 222 of Cr.P.C but upon careful analysis and appreciation of the prosecution evidence, it clearly perceives that there is no iota of evidence on record that the alleged fabricated 10 th class marksheet and certificate were in fact forged by the accused himself or in other words, that the accused was the maker of such impugned documents. The perusal of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 even though suggests that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, the recovery of certain other incriminating documents along with the stamps, computer, CPU, scanner, printer, webcam etc. was allegedly effected from the house of accused but such recovery per se is not sufficient to presume that the impugned documents were fabricated by the accused himself. It was imperative on the part of IO to take the specimen signature and handwriting of the accused in accordance with Section 311 Cr.P.C. and verify the same with those on the impugned certificate and marksheet. It was also incumbent on the part of the IO to send the computer system and other devices including scanner as well as the stamps allegedly recovered from the accused to the FSL or seek some other expert AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.05.28 St. Vs. Surender Pal 16:02:22 +0530 opinion in that regard so as to verify that the impugned documents were prepared using the said computer devices and stamps etc. but such mandatory course was not adopted by the IO for the reasons unexplained. There is no justification with respect to such lapses given by PW-1 and PW-5 and even, no justification in that regard has been offered by the prosecution and hence, merely on the premise that the impugned documents as per the testimony of PW-4 remained unverified, the accused cannot be presumed to be the maker of such documents. Accordingly, the charge for minor offence under Section 466 IPC also cannot be said to be established in the present case.