Back
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Vidya Nath Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through SPE/CBI, Patna – Respondent
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The appeal is arising out of the judgment in Special Case No. 17/1981/RC No. 40/1981 on the file of Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna dated 23.05.2003, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 120-B and 420 r/w Section 34 of the India Penal Code and was sentenced under Sections 120-B and 420 r/w 34 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Further, he was sentenced under Section 419 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under section 468 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. It is pertinent to mention that charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., 419 of IPC and 468 of IPC, however, the conviction was only for offences punishable under Sections 468, 120B, and 420 r/w 34 of IPC but not for the offence punishable under section 419 of the IPC. Nevertheless, despite the absence of conviction under section 419 of the IP
(1) Offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as act of forgery is committed with intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (2) Not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘....
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
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.
Non-payment in commercial transactions does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without establishing fraudulent intent.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused for personal vendettas, requiring clear evidence of criminal intent for prosecution under IPC.
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
