Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RATHNAKALA, J.
M.R. Govindareddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1063 of 2010
Decided On : 26-07-2017
For the Petitioner:Veeranna G Tigadi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nasrulla Khan, HCGP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to prove fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offense of cheating under IPC Section 415, and the requirement to establish the use of a forged document as genuine for the offense of forgery under IPC Section 471.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Conviction - IPC 465, 468, 471, 420 - The court discussed the legal provisions of forgery, cheating, and valuable security under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, and 420. It highlighted the definition of 'valuable security' under Section 30 of the IPC and the elements of cheating under Section 415. The court emphasized the necessity to prove fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offense of cheating and concluded that the conviction under sections 420 and 468 was not justified due to lack of evidence of cheating. However, the court upheld the conviction under sections 465 and 471 based on the evidence of using a forged document as genuine.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for offenses under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 for tampering with a marks card to secure admission to a college. The accused denied the charges, and the prosecution presented evidence and witness testimonies. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the appeal was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction under sections 420 and 468 was not justified due to lack of evidence of cheating, but upheld the conviction under sections 465 and 471 based on the evidence of using a forged document as genuine. The court modified the sentence by enhancing the fine amount rather than imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the elements of forgery, cheating, and valuable security under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, and 420. The court analyzed the evidence and legal provisions to determine the validity of the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity to prove fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offense of cheating and concluded that the conviction under sections 420 and 468 was not justified due to lack of evidence of cheating. However, the court upheld the conviction under sections 465 and 471 based on the evidence of using a forged document as genuine.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under sections 420 and 468, acquitted the accused of those charges, and modified the sentence for the offenses under sections 465 and 471 by enhancing the fine amount rather than imprisonment.
1. This revision petition is preferred assailing the judgment of conviction dated 7.7.2009 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chintamani, in C.C.No.50/2007 whereby the revision petitioner is convicted for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The said judgment is upheld in appeal.
2. For further discussion, the parties will be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. Briefly stated, the accused was charge sheeted by the respondent-Investigating Officer in respect of the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
4. The allegation was, the accused applied for I year D.Pharma course in Niveditha College of Pharmacy, Chintamani; though he had not passed II PUC by procuring the marks card pertaining to CW-7, tampered the same by putting his name and signature at the place of name and signature of CW-7 and changed the year of the marks card from 1991 to 1999. The accused was procured and he pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The accused on pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 17 documents. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. There was no rebuttal evidence for the defence and after giving its audience, the Trial Court recorded the statement of conviction in respect of the offences stated supra. The appeal preferred thereon is rejected.
5. Learned counsel Sri. Veerana G. Tigadi for the accused assailing the judgments of the courts below submits that the accused had taken the stand of total denial. In that view of the matter, it was obligatory on the prosecution to examine the witness to prove beyond doubt that the application and marks card were submitted by the accused only. The signature of the accused/Ex.P15 was obtained beyond the procedure contemplated under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer could not have obtained the signature of the accused, without an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
6. Learned Counsel continues, to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 420 of IPC, prosecution is required to establish that the accused dishonestly induced anybody to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. The allegation herein is in respect of tampering a marks card which is not a valuable security and it is not the case of prosecution that he induced anybody to deliver any property in his favour or anyone, thus there cannot be conviction under Section 420 of IPC. In the absence of express order of the registration of section 311-A of IPC, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer i.e. signature of the accused vitiates entire investigation. The offence of 'Forgery' as contemplated in Section 63 of the IPC is not made out and his conviction under Section 465 if not legal.
7. The learned counsel continues, the conviction under Section 468 of IPC for the offence 'Forgery for the purpose of cheating is also not justified since the very offence of 'cheating' contemplated by 415 of IPC is not to be found in this case. In similar circumstance the Apex Court in the matter Bhausaheb Kalu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra ((1980) 4 SCC) altered the conviction under Section 471 r/w section 467 to that of under Section 471 and 465 of IPC.
8. Learned counsel continues to submit, in respect of conviction under Section 465 of IPC, the Apex Court has in a similar circumstance set aside the punishment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to consider for extension of the benefit of Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 or under Section 4 of the said Act. It is already 10 years since the incident occurred and the petitioner has paid enough and therefore, he may be acquitted of offences by extending the benefit of doubt.
