SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 43

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Hasanali – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
H.K.PURI, S.A.SHROFF, S.K.Gambhir, U.R.Lalit

ORDER :- The appellant has been convicted under Section 467 of the Penal Code. He was also charged under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. but he was acquitted of that charge. The charge against the appellant of which he was convicted runs thus :

"You on or about any date after 20th day of December 1968, forged a certain document purporting to be a valuable security to with Nikah-form in respect of your marriage with Sirinbai with intent to commit 353 fraud or that fraud may be committed and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions."

2. The main allegation is that the appellant forged a Nikah form. The charge does not mention under what circumstances the document was forged. It is vague. Even when the oral evidence was adduced at the trial no evidence was produced to prove the charge. In the circumstances we find no legal evidence on the basis of which he could be convicted. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 467, I. P. C. are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds are cancelled. The appeal is ac


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top