1. Application for compensation under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 — Submission of fabricated verified claim — Prosecution for forgery and cheating under Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 240
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., J.C.Shah, K.N.Wanchoo, JJ.
Bddhu Ram
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 229 of 1960
Date of Decision : 7/24/62
Advocates Appeared: Bahadur Sardar : Kapur S.K. : Menon P.D.
Advocates:
P.D.MENON, S.K.KAPOOR, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA
P.D.MENON, S.K.KAPOOR, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA
A complaint under Section 195(1)(c) CrPC is not required when only a copy of a forged document is produced in court. However, using an attested copy of a forged document as genuine constitutes an offence under Section 471 IPC, as the original's production is not mandatory.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 195(1)(c) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 471, 420, 511 - Production of a copy of a forged document - Whether a complaint by the court is necessary under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a copy of a forged document is produced instead of the original - Held: Section 195(1)(c) refers only to the document alleged to be forged and not to a copy of it; therefore, the absence of a complaint from a court where copies of forged documents are produced is no bar to the trial for an offence of forgery or using a forged document, as a court before which a copy is produced is not in a position to express an opinion on the genuineness of the original. (Paras 5, 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 471 - Using a forged document as genuine - Whether producing an attested copy of a forged document amounts to using the original forged document as genuine - Held: Section 471 does not require the production of the original document; where an attested copy suffices under the rules, its production amounts to using the original forged document as genuine if the person knows or believes it to be forged, as the copy serves as secondary evidence of the contents of the forged document. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A displaced person applied for compensation by submitting an application and an attested copy of a verified claim. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the claim was based on a fabricated document. The person was prosecuted under Sections 466, 471, and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense contended that the prosecution was incompetent due to the absence of a complaint by the officer acting as a court under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the production of a copy did not constitute an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the application and the attested copy were prepared and verified by the appellant. Since the original claim was never verified by the relevant authority, it was inferred that the appellant knew the document was forged and used it dishonestly to obtain an allotment to which he was not entitled, thereby seeking wrongful gain.
Issues: Whether a complaint by the officer was mandatory under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when only a copy of the forged document was produced, and whether the use of an attested copy of a forged document constitutes an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only when the forged document itself is produced in court; it does not extend to copies. However, under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, using an attested copy of a forged document as genuine constitutes the use of the forged document itself, as the section does not mandate the production of the original.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Competency of prosecution under Section 195(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure — Applicability of Section 471, Indian Penal Code to the production of a copy of a forged document. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Production of a copy of a forged document does not necessitate a complaint under Section 195(1)(c), CrPC; using an attested copy constitutes using the original as genuine. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Section 195(1)(c), CrPC applies only to original forged documents; however, using an attested copy of a forged document as genuine constitutes an offence under Section 471, IPC. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 471 and Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code upheld. (Para 10 )
6. Does Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure require a complaint when a copy of a forged document is produced in court?
No. Section 195(1)(c) refers only to the original document alleged to be forged, not a copy. Because a court before which a copy is produced is not in a position to express an opinion on the genuineness of the original, no complaint is required. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. Does the use of an attested copy of a forged document constitute an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code?
Yes. Section 471 requires the use of a forged document as genuine but does not mandate the production of the original. Where an attested copy suffices under the rules, its production amounts to using the original forged document as genuine. (Para 9 )
8. How is the element of knowledge and dishonest intent established in cases of forged claims for compensation?
Knowledge is inferred when the forged document is a claim in the appellant's own favor and official records show no such claim was ever verified. Dishonest intent is established by the attempt to obtain an allotment to which the person is not entitled. (Para 10 )
K.N.WANCHOO, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He obtained a registration card meant for displaced persons from the Rehabilitation Department in July 1949. In 1954, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (No. 44 of 1954) was enacted. Thereafter a notification was issued by the Central Government under the Act requiring displaced persons having verified claims to make applications for payment of compensation. Thereupon the appellant made an application for compensation (Ex. P-2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar in March 1955. as required under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In support of that application, he submitted an attested copy of his verified claim (Ex. P-3). It appears that the Assistant Settlement Officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allotable agricultural land to the appellant on quasi-permanent basis, and asked the Tehsildar Nagar to make a proposal in that connection in consultation with the appellant. In the meantime, secret information was received that displaced persons in that area had obtained allotment of land on false and forged verified claims. The matter was then inquired into and it was found that the claim for compensation made by the appellant was based on a fabricated verified claim. Consequently, the appellant was prosecuted under ss. 466, 471 and 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and was committed for trial to the Court of Session, Alwar.
(2) IT may be mentioned that the original of which Ex. P-3 is a copy submitted along with the application (Ex. P-2) was never produced either before the Assistant Settlement Officer or in the Sessions Court. The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom it was transferred. The appellants defence there was that the application (Ex. P-2) had not been submitted by him and that he had nothing to do with the said application or the enclosures accompanying it. He also contended that as the Assistant Settlement Officer, was acting as a court and as the offence under s. 471 was alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, his prosecution was incompetent in the absence of a complaint by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the contention of the appellant that any complaint by the Assistant Settlement Officer was necessary before cognizance could be taken of the offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He further held on the evidence led by the prosecution that the application (Ex. P-2) and the copy of the verified claim (Ex. P-3) and other papers accompanying the application were got prepared by the appellant and got attested and verified by him. He further held that though there was no direct proof of the fact that the application (Ex. P-2) was put in by the appellant in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar, there could be no doubt in the circumstances of the case that the application (Ex. P-2) along with its enclosures could only have been put in by the appellant or by someone on his behalf in the office, of the Assistant Settlement Officer. He, therefore, convicted the appellant under s. 471 as well as under s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment as well as fine. There was then an appeal by the appellant to the Sessions Judge, Alwar. This appeal was dismissed with the modification that the sentence of fine was set aside. The substantive sentence of imprisonment, which was two years rigorous imprisonment under s. 471 and one years rigorous imprisonment under s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code, has been made to run concurrently by both the courts.
(3) THE appellant then went in revision to the High Court and the main point urged there was that the pros
