Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In instant case it is alleged that Indian Food Corporation vacated the premises on 28.6.91 and gave possession to opposite party No. 2. This was the original document. It was not forged. What was forged was photostat copy prepared on the basis of this original document. Its photostat copy was got prepared and the name of opposite party No. 2 Radhey Shyam Dubey was deleted and in its place the name of the applicant Onkar Nath Dubey was written and such forged paper was produced in the court of ADM (Civil Supply), Varanasi when the Case No. 77 of 1991 was filed by the applicant for release of the accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act XII of 1972. Since the original order passed by the ADM (Civil Supply) Varanasi was not forged but its copy was forged and it was produced in the court therefore original forgery was committed on the photostat copy of the order and therefore for the purposes of forgery this became the original document. When enquiry was made under Section 340 Cr.PC this forged document was perused not only by the ADM (Civil Supply) Varanasi but by Addl.District Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi and both courts arrived at the conclusion that while in original the possession of the accommodation was handed over to opposite party No. 2 Radhey Shayam Dubey but in forged copy name of applicant Onkar Nath Dubey was written and therefore in enquiry both the court arrived at the consistent conclusion that forgery was committed and after making such enquiry and giving opportunity to the applicant the complaint was filed.

12. In instant case it was not original document in which forgery was committed. It was photostat copy of original document in which forgery was committed. This forged document was produced in the court and thereafter by filing release application, the applicant got released the accommodation in his favour. It may be significant to mention that in this case ownership of the house or right of the parties is not be determined, what is to be ascertained is whether forgery was committed by the applicant or not and whether enquiry was made under Section 340 of Code or not and in such enquiry Officer/court arrived at the conclusion that forgery was committed. As is expressed above ADM (Civil Supply), Varanasi made enquiry under Section 340 of the Code and found that forgery was committed and that forged document even though it was photostat copy was produced in court and on its basis the premises was got released in his favour. Therefore the compliance of above provision of the Cr.PC have been made before the complaint was filed by the ADM (Civil Supply), Varanasi and the order of summoning under Section 193 IPC to face the trial as accused cannot be said to be an illegal order causing injustice to the applicant. Therefore instant application moved under Section 482 Cr.PC is devoid of force and it is dismissed.