Back
G.B.PATTANAIK, M.B.SHAH, R.C.LAHOTI
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Singh – Respondent
Key Points: - The High Court erred in acquitting the accused, holding that an unsigned bail order could not constitute a "document" for the offense of forgery (!) [1000036130002]. - A person is considered to make a false document under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code if they dishonestly or fraudulently make, sign, seal, or execute a document or part of a document (!) [1000036130002]. - Forgery of a court record, such as a bail order, with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public constitutes an offense under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code (!) [1000036130002]. - The expression "wrongful" in Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code is not confined to the acquisition or deprivation of property but means prejudicially affecting a party in some legal right (!) [1000036130002]. - Preparing a forged bail order that allows an undeserving person to be released on bail causes damage or injury to the public at large (!) [1000036130002]. - Fraud involves deceit and injury, which can include harm to a person's body, mind, or reputation, not just economic loss (!) [1000036130002]. - The acquittal order by the High Court was set aside, and the conviction under Sections 466 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld (!) [1000036130003]. - The benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offenders Act was affirmed, requiring the respondent to execute a personal bond for good behavior (!) [1000036130003]. - The High Court's direction regarding the accused's continuous service and payment of allowances was quashed as being without jurisdiction [1000036130004].
Judgment
Pattanaik, J.-The respondent was a Stenographer of a learned Judge of Allahabad High Court. He stood the trial for having committed offences under Sections 417, 420, 466, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he fabricated a forged bail order for one accused Khelawan. The accused however denied the allegations in the trial. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him of all the charges and passed different sentences thereunder. On an appeal being carried, the Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1985 acquitted the accused of the offence under Sections 417, 420 and 467 IPC but maintained his conviction under Sections 466 and 468 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offences under Sections 466 and 468 IPC and in default, to serve out rigorous imprisonment for three months more, with the further direction that the sentences will run concurrently. But instead of sending the accused to Jail, he was given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958 and it was ordered that he will file
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
