Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, the allegation is of their having committed forgery of certain documents for taking possession of a certain land for the purpose of carrying out construction work thereon. That, thereafter, the applicants, without the requisite permission of the Thane Municipal Corporation, hurriedly constructed a building on a part of the land so acquired. That, the entire construction work was got done hurriedly without bothering for the quality thereof. That, such improper, illegal construction work was carried out inspite of fully Tilak 11/14 BA-1118-13 being aware of the fact that this could create danger to the lives and property of several persons. A number of forged documents were prepared to show that the construction work that had been carried out, was authorized and as per law. For constructing the building in this manner, the applicants had bribed the Municipal Officers. That, the building ultimately collapsed, resulting in the death of 74 person and causing injuries to 62 persons.

19. Though a number of documents which are alleged to be 'forged', are not forged :- in the sense that only the recitals therein appear to be false and though, therefore, the same might amount to some other offence/s, it would not amount to forgery, there are at least a few documents, which appear to be forged and since these documents, prima facie, seem to be purporting to be valuable securities, it cannot be said that in this case, no investigation into an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC was required to be done. In particular, there is a specific allegation that a development permission certificate, purportedly issued by the Thane Municipal Corporation, is a forged document, and that, it has not been issued by the said Municipal Corporation, and is not having the signature of the Deputy City Engineer, Town Development, as it purports to have.

20. Since no arguments on merits of the allegations were advanced, there has been no occasion to meticulously analyse whether any offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC was, indeed, disclosed or involved in this case. On taking a prima facie view, however, at least a few documents appear to be forged and Tilak 12/14 BA-1118-13 the forgery appears to be in respect of such documents, as would attract the provisions of section 467 of IPC. However, in my opinion, the crucial aspect of the matter is entirely different. The real question is whether an occasion had arisen for the Investigating Agency to carry out investigation relating to an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC. In my opinion, indeed it had arisen. When the construction was found to be in contravention of the required norms and it appeared that there existed documents to show that the construction was being carried out in a regular manner and with the requisite permissions, whether the documents in question were genuine or false/forged needed investigation. In the facts of the case, considering the manner in which the land was acquired, construction was carried out, permissions from the concerned authorities were obtained - or falsely claimed and shown to have been obtained - the commission of an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC could very well be suspected and it, therefore, cannot be said that investigation into this aspect of the matter was not necessary. Though the offence of forgery came to be suspected while investigating into the case of homicidal deaths arising on account of the collapse of a building, the manner in which the building came to be constructed could not be taken out of the purview of the investigation that was going on. It may be observed that the allegations of the offences of cheating, forgery, forgery for cheating, forgery of valuable security, using a forged document as genuine knowing the same to be forged, etc were added in the case within a month from the arrest of the applicants. Such allegations cannot be treated as fanciful or invented, or unconnected with the case of offences, investigation into which had Tilak 13/14 BA-1118-13 originally commenced. The addition of the said offences was bonafide and genuine. The addition of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC in the case, does not, certainly, seem to be absurd, or done with mala-fide intention of getting the period of detention pending investigation, extended. It can be said that the investigation was relating (also) to an offence punishable under section 467 of IPC. Consequently, it cannot be said that the maximum period authorizing detention pending investigation in this case could be of 60 days.

22. Indeed, it is rather ironical that with respect to a more serious part of the case i.e. the loss of lives of about 74 persons, the offence would be one punishable under Part II of section 304 of IPC, and therefore, the maximum period for detention pending investigation with respect to such an offence would be only 60 days, while for the forgery of certain documents, which was only incidental to the real object of the applicants, (as has been alleged) the detention for a greater period pending investigation could be Tilak 14/14 BA-1118-13 authorized. This paradox was sought to be emphasized by the learned counsel for the applicants, who thereby suggested that since 'the main offence' would be falling under Part II of section 304 of IPC, the period of detention pending investigation should be reckoned on that basis. Indeed, inspite of noticing a some what paradoxical situation in this regard, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants. The prayer for release on bail is made by the applicants on technical grounds. When a party seeking relief purely on a technical ground, fails to get the same, also on a technical ground, all that can be said is that the Law has operated evenly.