Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002
It was further contented that there was no documentary evidence
against the petitioner to show that the petitioner had induced the college to give
him admission in any manner whatsoever and the Ld. MM had failed to appreciate
the evidence on record in the form of statement of professor of Dayal Singh College
Tarun Gulati Vs State - 287 of 2014 2/9
during precharge evidence, where it had come on record that the admission forms
were being put up before the concerned authority only by the College Staff and not
by the student himself. It was also stated that Ld. MM had failed to appreciate the
mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in "Dilwar Balu Kurane Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported as (2002) 2 SCC 135", wherein, it was stated that the person
is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the benefit of doubt must go to
the accused even at the stage of framing charge and further submitted that the
Court should not merely act as a post office and mouth piece of prosecution and has
to consider the broad probabilities of the case. Thus, the impugned order has caused
grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Nayyar vs The State on 1 May, 2007
15 Perusal of the report of the handwriting expert reveals that the
signature of the concerned college authorities on the questioned documents were
found to be forged and were not signed by them, but no opinion had been expressed
by the expert to the effect that the questioned signatures (forged signatures) on the
admission form were put by the petitioner herein. Hence, there was not even an iota
of evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had forged the signatures of
concerned authorities on his admission form. In the absence of any such evidence,
the prosecution version could not have been accepted as a gospel truth.
16 In "Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. State", it was observed that the basic time
tested norm is that the Court has to form a reasonable opinion about existence of
grave suspicion, regarding commission of the offence. If two versions were possible,
Tarun Gulati Vs State - 287 of 2014 7/9
then the one supporting the accused had to be preferred. Essential ingredient to
attract an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is that there has to be a
dishonest intention to deceive another person to deliver any property to any person,
or to consent for its retention by other or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not
so deceived. For cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention has to be shown right
from the beginning of the transaction. In order to gather dishonest intention, not
only the allegations in the complaint but also the entire transaction and the
documents relied upon by the prosecution on record have to be gone into.
17 To attract Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown firstly, that revisionist
had used forged document as genuine, fraudulently and dishonestly and thereafter,
secondly it was shown that he had knowledge or had reasons to believe the same to
be forged documents.
1