Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The sole point arising for decision in the instant criminal revision is whether or not the findings of the learned Appellate Court and the learned trial Court with regard to guilt of the accused petitioner are sustainable on the face of the materials on record.

6. Mr. Sudipto Moitra the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended at the outset that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and the co-accused and without making any finding on the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also drawn my attention to the judgment of the learned Appellate Court where there is no finding whatsoever on the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has contended that unless the intention to use the document forged for the purpose of cheating is proved, the essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is absent. He has further drawn my attention to Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery. As defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. It has been argued by Mr. Moitra that the learned trial Court made no finding with regard to such intent which is sine qua non of the offence of forgery and in absence of such finding or evidence the offence of forgery cannot be proved against the present petitioner. He has further drawn my attention to the fact that though point No. 1 formulated by the learned trial Court for consideration relates to the offence of cheating no finding whatsoever was made by the learned trial Court on this aspect of the matter and that apart, there was no proof of intention of the accused that the deed of gift alleged to have been forged was ever intended to be used for the purpose of cheating. Mr. Moitra has pointed out the relevant portion of the finding of the learned trial Court wherefrom it appears that the learned trial Court has observed that to constitute an offence of forgery simple making of false document is sufficient. This finding of the learned trial Court has been assailed by Mr. Moitra contending that only making of false document will not make any person guilty of the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code unless the intention to use such document for the purpose of cheating is proved against him. Mr. Moitra has contended that since there was no finding of the learned trial Court or of the learned Appellate Court on the point of intention to cheat and there was no finding whatsoever on the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused, it necessarily implies that the accused petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in that event charge under Section 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has got no legal basis. He has cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Adhi Mullick v. The State, it has been held as follows:

8. On hearing the rival contentions raised by Moitra and Mr. Ahmed and going through the materials on record I find that neither the learned trial Court nor the learned Appellate Court made any finding with regard to charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code although the point for consideration relating to the said charge, as mentioned hereinbefore, was formulated by the learned trial Court.

In my view, absence of finding with regard to charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is an inadvertent error of the Court which does not imply acquittal of the accused of the said charge. In the case of Adhi Mullick (supra) as cited by Mr. Moitra the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of offences under Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. Such is not the case here. In the instant case both the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court did not make any finding on the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code though the said charge has been framed against the present petitioner along with the co-accused. Since the element of cheating is involved in the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating as contemplated under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, specific finding with regard to cheating in such case is essentially required. In that view of the matter even in absence of charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code the Court can well deal with the matter relating to the element of cheating while deciding the case relating to the charge of forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in the instant case not only charge under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused including the present petitioner but also charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. So the point relating to the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is one of the vital issues which ought to have been adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. This has not been done in the instant case. Absence of finding on this aspect of the matter is tantamount to gross irregularity which can be remedied by this Court sitting in revision.