Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Sheila Sebastian – Appellant
Versus
R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-360 of 2010
Decided On : 11-05-2018
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 464 – Offence of forgery – Cannot lie against a person who has not created or signed the document. (Para 20)
(1896) 2 QB 310; (2009) 8 SCC 751; (2009) 15 SCC 643 – Relied upon
(1996) 11 SCC 622 – Referred
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 464 – Making of a document and causing it to be made – Difference – Unless accused is maker of a false document, he cannot be convicted – Penal statute – Strict interpretation – Instantly power of attorney falsely made by the imposter – Respondents merely acted on such document – High Court rightly acquitting respondents. (Para 25, 26)
(d) Criminal jurisprudence – Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof – Standard of proof in a criminal trial – Proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 27)
(2018) 3 SCC 66 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Accused no. 1 and 2 were tried wherein accused no. 1 was convicted under Section 465, IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and accused no. 2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offences under Section 465 read with Section 109, IPC vide order dated 12.03.2003.
The appeal was dismissed.
High Court acquitted the revision petitioners by setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be interfered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment states that a conviction under section 465 IPC cannot rest solely on satisfaction of section 464 ingredients; ingredients of section 463 must also be satisfied. (!) - It clarifies that to constitute forgery under section 463, the accused must have made the false document under section 464; mere execution by someone else does not amount to forgery by the alleged maker. (!) (!) - The making of a false document requires that the maker either creates, signs, seals, or executes the document with intent to misrepresent, and the maker’s identity is essential; the imposter who creates the document cannot always be the maker for forgery to apply. (!) (!) - Section 464 defines making a false document and excludes liability where the accused is not the maker of the false document;Explanation 2 emphasizes that the person who makes the document must be the maker for liability under section 464. (!) (!) - The court adopted a strict interpretation of penal statutes; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) - The facts show that in this case the imposter created the PoA and forged documents; the accused could not be convicted under section 464 because they were not the maker of the false document. (!) - The decision emphasizes that a false document must be made by the accused; mere impersonation by another does not automatically convict the accused under forgery sections. (!)
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
These criminal appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 523 & 546 of 2005, wherein the High Court has allowed the criminal revisions and held that the conviction of accused respondents is not sustainable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’].
2. The case of the prosecution giving rise to these appeals, in brief, is that the complainant Mrs. Doris Victor (deceased mother of the appellant) was the owner of a plot insurvey numbers 1777/1A, 1778/1, 1779/1 and 1779/2 in Valliyoor village. The complainant alleges that, accused no. 1, (R. Jawaharaj), with the aid of an imposter who by impersonating as Mrs. Doris Victor created a Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘PoA’) in his name as if he was her agent. It was further alleged that, using the aforesaid PoA the accused no. 1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no. 2, (Rajapandi) for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. After getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of the property Mrs. Doris Victor gave a complaint to the police which was subsequently registered as FIR dated 14.03.1998. After the completion of investigation, a final report was filed against the aforesaid accused under Sections 420, 423 and 424, IPC. The complainant Mrs. Doris Victor died after filing the complaint.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against accused no. 1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420,423 and 465, IPC and against the accused no. 2 for the offences under Sections 424 and 465 read with 109, IPC. Both the accused were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Valliyoor in C.C. No: 62/1999, wherein accused no. 1 was convicted under Section 465, IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and accused no. 2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offences under Section 465 read with Section 109, IPC vide order dated 12.03.2003.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondents-Accused appealed before the Ld. Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli by way of Criminal Appeal Nos. 72 & 78 of 2003, which ended up in dismissal by upholding the order of conviction.
5. Thereafter, the respondents approached the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai, wherein the High Court acquitted the revision petitioners by setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below. The High Court, basing on the decision in Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Another, 1996 (11) SCC 622 observed that, the requirement of Section 464, IPC is not satisfied in view of what has been stated under Explanation 2 to Section 464. Further from the perusal of the Explanation, it is clear that to get attracted the offence of forgery, “making of a false document is essential. Hence perusing the given facts and circumstances before it, the High Court concluded that, as no case is made out under Section 464, IPC offence under Section 420 of the IPC being a consequential one, equally cannot be sustained.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court setting aside the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below against the respondents, the appellant (daughter of the deceased Doris Victor) filed the present appeal before this Court.
7. The counsel for the appellant submits that, the High Court failed to appreciate the material placed on record and acquitted the respondent solely on the basis that their signatures are not found on the forged document. According to the appellant, this is an erroneous interpretation of Section 464 of IPC which mandates that anyone who makes a false document is guilty of forgery. The respondents allegedly created the forged power of attorney with the sole intention of grabbing the property belonging to Mrs
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
