Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. The allegation in the charge sheet that the petitioner had got his computer formatted after downloading information relating to the registered documents of various individuals, taking advantage of his official access code, would amount to causing disappearance of evidence of the offence under Section 201 IPC. The allegations, in the charge sheet, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 201 IPC also.

SECTION 468 IPC:

34. Section 468 IPC whoever commits forgery, intending that the document 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. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit, rightly so, that the ingredients, to constitute an offence under Section 468 IPC, are "forgery" under Section 463; "making a false document" under Section 464 and "cheating" under Section 415 IPC.
35. Section 468 IPC is an aggravated form of forgery. Unlike "forgery" under Section 463 IPC, and "using as genuine a forged document" under Section 471 IPC, for both of which the punishment prescribed in Section 465 IPC is upto two years imprisonment or with fine or with both, the prescribed punishment for "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC is imprisonment upto seven years and also fine. The essential ingredients of Section 468 IPC are (i) that the accused committed forgery; and (ii) that he did so intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of "cheating". Under Section 463 IPC, whoever makes any false document with the intention of causing damage or injury to the public or to any person, or with the intention to commit fraud, commits "forgery". Section 464 suggests that a person makes a false document if he - (1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document;

37. Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in order to attract the ingredients of Section 468 IPC, the charge sheet and the documents annexed thereto should allege that the petitioner had committed forgery intending that the document forged should be used for the purposes of "cheating"; it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had induced any person to do anything, (which he would not have done if he were not so deceived), which act had caused injury to his mind, body or reputation, let alone property; a feeble attempt was made, during the course of arguments, that the mind of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India was injured; nowhere in the charge sheet, or in the documents enclosed thereto, is there any allegation that damage was caused to the mind or reputation of any person, let alone, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs; and neither Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS nor the Joint Secretary, Home Affairs were examined nor were they cited as witnesses.

42. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the petitioner, in his official capacity as the DG-ACB, had not done any act legally, but wanted to achieve something which he desired; the petitioner had conspired with A.1, and had forged letters in the name of others; and an accused, who commits forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, is liable to be punished under Section 468 IPC. While fairly stating that there is no judicial pronouncement on the subject in India, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that Section 415 IPC should be broadly understood in the factual situation; the only intentional inducement that is likely to cause harm or damage is perceived in the mind of that person; the expression "mind" in Section 415 IPC includes the ability of an individual to perceive, and do or omit to do a particular act; the meaning of "mind", contextually applied to Section 415 IPC, should be understood to mean a person who intentionally induces the person deceived to act or omit to act which causes, or is likely to cause harm to the person deceived as such inducement will be perceived on the mind on the said illegal act being committed; but for the forged letter of Sri M.A. Khan, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India would not have acted to direct an enquiry into the contents of the letter by taking attention thereof in its perception; the intellectual and mental qualities of the said person, therefore, had been sensitized by the forged letter which prompted the State to initiate an enquiry; it is to be understood, at this stage of the proceedings, that the mind of that person can be attributable either to the de jure or the de facto complainant; no distinction can be drawn at this stage of the proceedings between the two; bearing this in mind it is also essential to consider, and take note of the timing of, the letter to cull out the mens rea of the petitioner in his conspiracy with Sri T. Sunil Reddy in forging the letter; the vacancy in the office of the DGP was to fall vacant on 30.6.2011 on the retirement of the then DGP Sri K. Aravinda Rao; and the forged letter had been received by the Government of India on 5.5.2011; it must, therefore, be understood that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally got the act done through A-1 to make the Government of India act on the letter which was likely to affect the State as well as its officers namely Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS; in offences of this nature no strict distinction can be drawn between de jure and de facto complaints; it has to be broadly understood that, in criminal jurisprudence, when the offence has come to light and to the knowledge of the State, the harm caused would be both to the State as well as its subjects; in the exercise of its constitutional functions and duties, the State is obligated to investigate into acts of the offenders stepping into the shoes of the complainant; in this case an officer of the State and his services would be affected by virtue of the action or inaction on the basis of the letter received by it; it is therefore to be understood that the forged letter sent by the petitioner causes, or is likely to cause, damage to the State; another aspect which should be considered, for giving an effective meaning to Section 468 and 415 IPC, would be the harm that would be caused to the State; the harm would be the loss of services of one of its senior officers on false and flimsy grounds; it should be borne in mind that the petitioner intended it to happen that his acts should deprive the State of the services of a colleague senior officer of the force; for the said purpose, he had created a fake document forging the signature of Sri M.A. Khan, M.P; the offence of forgery simpliciter is punishable under Section 465 IPC; the group of sections beginning with Section 466 and ending with Section 469 provide for an aggravated form of forgery; the ingredients of the offence under Section 468 is the act of committing forgery with a particular intent, and that intent is to use the said forged document for the purpose of cheating; Section 468 does not require that the accused should actually commit the offence of cheating; it is sufficient if the said act is "likely to cause"; forgery is usually an act done in furtherance of some other criminal design; what is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery; if his intention and purpose, in committing forgery, is that the forged document should be used for the purpose of cheating, the offender is guilty of the aggravated offence under Section 468 IPC.