Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Elaborate submissions, both oral and written, were made by Sri Prabhakar Sripada, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Additional-Advocate General appearing for the 1st and the 7th respondents, and Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent.

5. In support of his submission that the order of the Learned Magistrate, in Crl.M.P. No.3729 of 2011 in Crime No.53 of 2011 dated 10.10.2011, should be quashed, Sri Sripada Prabhakar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that granting pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is a judicial act; the Learned Magistrate had granted pardon merely on the application of Sri T. Sunil Reddy (the 4th respondent), which request was supported by the prosecution; the Learned Magistrate erred in granting pardon to a person who had, allegedly, forged the signature of a Member of Parliament, and who was described by the Addl. DGP, CID, in his letter dated 22.8.2008, as the king-pin in the whole transaction; when a case of forgery is filed, pardon cannot be granted to the very person who is said to have forged the signature; it is only the person, said to be the least guilty amongst the several accused, who can be granted pardon, and not the person who had actively participated in the commission of the offence; Section 306 would apply only where the offences involved are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more; among the offences mentioned in the FIR, and the charge sheet, it is only Section 468 IPC which prescribes imprisonment of upto 7 years; neither the prosecution nor the approver, in any of the affidavits/statements/documents placed before the Learned Magistrate, had stated who the victim of "cheating" was or whether he had suffered, or was likely to suffer, damage to his body, mind reputation or property; even the word 'cheating' has not been used in any of the aforesaid statements/documents/affidavits; as the ingredients of "cheating" as defined under Section 415 IPC, which forms the basis of the offence of "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC, is not even alleged, the petition seeking pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C could not have been entertained; all the allegations, taken at face value, do not even state as to who was cheated, let alone state that such a person had suffered, or was likely to suffer, damage to his body, mind, reputation or property; the Learned Magistrate could not, therefore, have entertained the request for grant of pardon in respect of an alleged offence which has not even feebly been demonstrated to have been committed; none of the documents relied upon by the prosecution i.e., FIR, remand report, confession statement, statement of the approver, charge sheet etc, refer either to the name or the description of the victim or the manner in which the victim was cheated; introduction of Section 468 IPC in the FIR was only with the object of planting an approver; the Learned Magistrate blindly accepted the version of the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence under Section 468 IPC, without even ascertaining whether the documents placed for his perusal even allege that any person was "cheated" and, if so, what was the nature of "cheating"; the Learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the request for pardon as the approver had neither spelt out the actual act of "cheating" nor did he identify the victim; the complaint in Cr. No.53 of 2011 was an abuse of the process of law; the complaint was lodged at the behest of, and under the directions of, respondent No.5 (Sri V. Dinesh Reddy - Director General of Police) as it was he who had, by his memo dated 24.08.2011, ordered registration of the FIR; the court below erred in conducting proceedings in camera; the court below did even notify the petitioner regarding an application being filed under Section 306 Cr.P.C, even though the petitioner was arrayed as an accused before the court on 24.09.2011; the court below erred in denying the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the approver; the Court below failed to notice that Sri T. Sunil Reddy had changed his version several times; his confession statement in police custody on 27.08.2011 was different from his subsequent confession statement dated 03.09.2011; similarly the affidavit filed by him, in Crl.M.P. No.3729 of 2011, was again different; there were marked improvements in his statements from time to time; the court below erred in granting pardon to Sri T. Sunil Reddy without either examining his conduct or the impact of granting pardon to a self-confessed prime offender; the order of the court below is without jurisdiction; existence of an alternative remedy of revision, under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is not a bar for filing this Writ Petition challenging the order passed under Section 306 Cr.P.C; the petitioner was framed and hounded by the prosecution at the behest of Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS; and the petitioner has rendered 34 years of spotless service, and is being subjected to humiliation and harassment at the pinnacle of his career.

18. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has classified forgery into different categories, and has prescribed different punishments for such offences. While a severe punishment is prescribed for some forms of forgery, for others a lesser punishment is stipulated. The punishment prescribed for "forgery of the record of Court or of public registers" under Section 466 IPC, and "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. The punishment prescribed for "forgery of valuable Security, Will etc.", under Section 467 IPC, is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. On the other hand, the punishment for "forgery" under Section 463 IPC and "using as genuine a forged document" under Section 471 IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and for "forgery for the purpose of harming reputation" under Section 469 IPC the prescribed punishment is imprisonment which may extent to three years. While the Magistrate can exercise his power to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. for "forgery of record of Court or of public register etc." under Section 466 IPC; for "forgery of valuable Security, Will etc.," under Section 467 IPC and "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC; he cannot, in view of Section 306(2)(b), exercise his power to tender pardon where the offence alleged is "forgery" under Section 463 IPC; "forgery for the purpose of harming reputation" under Section 469 IPC; or "for using as genuine a forged document" under Section 471 IPC.

21. 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". The ingredients of "cheating" under Section 415 IPC are (i) the accused had deceived another person; (ii) the accused intentionally induced the person so deceived to do something which he would not do, or omit to do if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission was such as to cause, or was likely to cause, damage or harm to the person deceived in body, mind, reputation or property. Any person who intentionally induces a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything, which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". While the first part of the definition of "cheating" in Section 415 IPC relates to property, the second part does not necessarily relate to property. The second part speaks of intentional deception which must be intended not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something, but also to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The intentional deception presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of the person making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not so deceived. The further requirement is that such act or omission should have caused damage or harm to body, mind, reputation or property. (G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad12; Kandaswami Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu13). In so far as the second part of Section 415 is concerned, "property" is not involved at any stage. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the deceived, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act, or the omission to do an act, as a result of which the person deceived should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. (Kandaswami Gounder13). While the Magistrate may not be justified in making a detailed analysis of the material placed before him, and record a conclusive finding whether or not an offence under Section 468 IPC has been established; he would, nonetheless, be required to satisfy himself that the material placed before him contains atleast a bald and bare allegation attracting the ingredients of "cheating" under Section 415 IPC in which event alone can the accused in Crime No.53 of 2011 or in C.C. No.555 of 2011 (renumbered as C.C. No.846 of 2011), including Sri T. Sunil Reddy (A-1) be said to have committed the offence of "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC.

26. The submission of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, that, even if it is found that the order passed by the Magistrate is irregular, the proceedings would not be vitiated as Section 460 (g) Cr.P.C. includes, among the irregularities which would not vitiate the proceedings, the power to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C, does not merit acceptance. Section 460 Cr.P.C. relates to irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings and, under clause (g) thereof, if any Magistrate, not empowered by law to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C, erroneously in good faith tenders pardon, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his being not so empowered. Section 460 (g) Cr.P.C. applies only if a Magistrate is not empowered by law to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate, who passed the impugned order, either lacks jurisdiction or he does not have the power to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that, while Section 306 Cr.P.C. did empower the Learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to tender pardon, his power to do so was circumscribed by the requirement under sub- section 2(b) thereof, and it is only in such a case could he have exercised his power to grant pardon to an accomplice. While the Learned Magistrate does have the power under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to grant pardon, such a power can only be exercised, in view of Section 306(2)(b), where the offence of which the accused is charged is punishable for a period of seven years or more. Section 460(g) Cr.P.C, therefore, has no applicable to the facts of the present case. As the Learned Magistrate has granted pardon to the fourth respondent herein, despite the bar under Section 306 (2)(b) Cr.P.C., and none of the documents placed before him contain even a bare and bald allegation attracting the ingredients of "cheating" under Section 415 IPC which is the essential requirement for an offence of "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC, the impugned order must be, and is, accordingly, quashed.