Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Ld. Sr. Counsel relying upon the judgments in Manorama Naik V/s State of Orissa reported in 2022 Live Law SC 297, Ramprasad Jatav Vs. State of M.P. CRR 600/2022 (M.P.)(para 16-18), Vijay Kant Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. (MCRC 40620/23) Jabalpur), Swami Brijesh Ballabhacharya Vs. State of M.P. (MCRC 35177/22) further submits that, the learned trial court has mainly given a singular reason to absolve the respondent No.2 from charges of forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC on the ground that the State Examiner of Questioned Documents report dated 30.07.21 favours the Accused. The above conclusion reached by the learned trial court is unsustainable for the following reasons:-

Response to submission on behalf of the Accused that if offence of cheating is not made out then no forgery can be assumed.

"i. This is incorrect. The said submission may be relevant only in case of an offence under 468 IPC (Forgery for the purpose of cheating), but not in cases under Sections 463 (Forgery), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or an electronic record) of the IPC which are each distinct and standalone offences which are punishable as per Section 465 IPC.