Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dilawar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—Since both the revision petitions emanate out of a common judgment dated 04.10.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District, Una, H.P.; hence, they are being taken up together for consideration and disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. Both the revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revisions are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused Dilawar Singh conspired with the co-accused Purshotam Singh and got the general power of attorney executed on behalf of Shiv Ram in favour of Purshotam Singh from Darba
Forgery – There is presumption of correctness attached to certificate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment and fraudulent execution of a sale deed constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code, leading to conviction.
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
In backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Code under Chapter XIV and of principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to exercise of extraordinary....
The execution of sale deeds by co-sharers exceeding their portion does not constitute forgery or criminal liability, reaffirming that such disputes are civil in nature.
The execution of a forged sale deed constitutes conspiracy and forgery under IPC, supported by forensic evidence confirming the identity of the imposter.
The propounder of a will must prove due execution and attestation, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist; mere registration does not guarantee authenticity.
The presumption of validity of registered documents places the burden of proof on the challenger, and civil court decisions can significantly impact the viability of subsequent criminal allegations.
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
