Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA
Vandana – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORDER
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of the judgment of the High court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur bench in Criminal Revision Application no. 78 of 2019 which affirmed the judgement rendered in Criminal Appeal no. 98 of 2007 which had reduced/altered the sentence imposed by the trial court for rigorous imprisonment Three years for the offence under section(s) 420 and 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be read as “IPC”) and Fine of Rs. 20,000/- for each of these offences with default sentence of Two months; and Rigorous Imprisonment for One year for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default sentence of One month to Simple Imprisonment for One year for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 511 IPC and fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence of Two months and further Simple Imprisonment of One year for the offences punishable under section 468 and 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, with default sentence of Two months/One-month simple imprisonment respectively.
3. The material facts n
(1) Cheating and forgery – While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish guilt of accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that alle....
The court upheld conviction for forgery despite the absence of economic loss, emphasizing harm to institutional integrity as sufficient for fraud under Section 465 IPC.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the essential elements of forgery and cheating, highlighting the necessity of establishing the making of a false document and dishonest inducement.
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts to the accused. In the absence of credible evidence linking the acc....
The onus of proof that the accused brought forth a forged document with a view to cheating rested with the prosecution, and the vital link in the chain of circumstances against the accused was essent....
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a document is forged and that the accused produced it; absence of such evidence renders conviction unsustainable.
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
