Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code simply defines the term 'forgery' or, in otherwords. specifies the circumstances under which a person con be said to have committed forgery. The offence of forgery is, however, punishable under section 465 of the IPC and sections 466, 467, 468 and 469 provide for punishment of different species of forgery. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Goswami v. Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 467 may be referred to. In the said decision, it has been held that an offence under section 466 of the Penal Code is an offence which falls within the description of section .463 and is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to sub-section (1)(b)(ii) of the present Code. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, it can be said that section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery as a general term is referred to in sub-section (1)(b)(ii) in a comprehensive sense so as to embrace all species of forgery. In other words, even though sections 465. 466. 467. 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code are not explicitly specified in subsection (1) (b)[ii). the offences punishable under those sections can also be said to be the offences which are covered by the expression "any offence described in section 463".

12. Let us now endeavour to find out what offences if any. can be said to appear to have been committed prima facie in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The order dated 21.12.94 passed by the Division Bench comprising Justice T. Chatterjee and Justice N.A.Chowdhury in FMAT No.955 of 1994 clearly suggests that the said Division Bench was satisfied that the order purporting to have been passed by that Bench on 27.5.94 was not really the order that was actually passed by the Bench on that date in that case and that the purported order was a fabricated one and that the signatures appended to that order appearing in the order-sheet and purporting to be the signatures of the Judges of that Bench were not theirs and were forged. The said order further goes to show that it was a false document made dishonestly and fraudulently within the meaning of section 464 of the IPC with intent to commit fraud and also to support a claim. It would also appear from the order that there has been fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being used in the subsequent stage of the judicial proceeding and also for the purpose of defrauding and cheating some persons and authorities. The order also suggests that there was forgery of a document purporting to be a record of proceeding of a court of Justice within the meaning of section 466 of IPC and that the said forgery was committed with the intention that the said document would be used for the purpose of cheating. It also discloses fraudulent and dishonest user of a document with the knowledge that it was a forged document. The order also reveals that the present petitioner falsely claimed before the Bench that he had applied for a certified copy of the impugned order and was furnished with such a copy by the court. It also reveals that the petitioner produced a document alleged to be the xerox copy of the original certified copy of the impugned order, even though no certified copy was applied for nor was it supplied to him by the court. It also appears from the order that the xerox copy of the so-called certified copy of the forged order of the court was used before authorities other than the court for gaining some advanlage which would not have been available but for that order. The investigation that was made by the CBI in pursuance of the direction given by the Division Bench contained in that order dated 21.12.94 revealed who the offenders are in relation to the offences of forgery of the court record, fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding and also for the purpose of being used for making some other authorities to act in a manner they would not have acted but for that false evidence in support of the forged order of the court. Thus, upon a scrutiny of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the order dated 21.12.94 passed by the Division Bench (which is available from a copy of the FIR placed by the learned counsel for the CB1) as well as in the copy of the charge-sheet (placed by the learned counsel for the CBI) it can be said that they go to make out a prima facie case of commission of (i) an offence of fabricating false evidence punishable under section 193 of the IPC for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding and also elsewhere.(ii) the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of IPC, (iii) the offence of forgery punishable under section 465 of the IPC. (iv) the offence of forgery of a court record punishable under section 446 of the IPC, (v) the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating as punishable under section 468 IPC and (vi) the offence of dishonest and fraudulent user of a forged document as genuine punishable under section 471 of the IPC in pursuance of (vii) a criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B of the IPC.

In Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court held that until the original document is produced in the court, the bar of section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not get attracted. Such a view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in : Surjit Singh v. Balbair Singh. Incidentally, it may be pointed out here that the decision of a Singie Bench of this court reported in 1985 Cr LJ 1956: Shrikrishna Khatry v. Gobardhan Nath Tandon, which was cited on behalf of the petitioner, also echoes the aforesaid proposition to the effect that unless it was prima facie established that the original forged document was in fact produced as evidence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry under section 340 Cr PC nor does he have Jurisdiction to file a complaint. Mr, V.B.Singh did not, however, advance any argument to suggest that the original forged document was produced in evidence before the Division Bench. From the order dated 21.12.94, it would be evident that what was produced by the petitioner before the Division Bench in compliance with its direction was the xerox copy of the alleged certified copy of the impugned order dated 27.5.94 and not the original certified copy. Accordingly, it must be held that for the offences punishable under sections 466 and 468 involving the element of forgery as described in section 463 of the IPC, the bar under section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not at all attracted, necessiating a court complaint.