Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee & Siba Prasad Rajkhowa, JJ
J.Th. Zwart
v.
Indrani Mukherjee
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1387 of 1989
Decided On : December 20, 1989
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - FALSE DOCUMENT - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - SECTION 464 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE - SECTION 190(1)(A) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - COMPLAINT - ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an employee of K.L.M Royal Dutch Airlines, was placed under suspension and served with a chargesheet containing four charges, one of which alleged that she had received Rs. 1510/- from an agent on January 6, 1989, which she had not accounted for in the book. A domestic enquiry was held, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report adjudging the complainant guilty of all the charges levelled against her. The Company terminated her service, and the complainant filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners, the General Manager, Sales Manager, Accounts Manager, and Regional Manager of the Company, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to forge documents and use them to support the charge against her.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the two documents in question were not 'false documents' under the first part of the first clause of s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code because they were admittedly written and signed by the other accused and therefore would not be false even if the complainant's receipt of Rs. 1510/- from him as contained therein was a lie. The Court further held that the allegation in the complaint that the two documents were not executed on the dates appearing thereon was sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the second part of the first clause of s. 464 to bring it within the meaning of "making a false document," but that the complaint did not contain any facts or material on which the allegation was being made and therefore did not entitle the Magistrate to take cognizance of the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the two documents in question were 'false documents' under the first part of the first clause of s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the allegation in the complaint that the two documents were not executed on the dates appearing thereon was sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the second part of the first clause of s. 464 to bring it within the meaning of "making a false document." 3. Whether the complaint contained any facts or material on which the allegation was being made and therefore entitled the Magistrate to take cognizance of the same.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A document is not false merely because it contains a false statement; it must also tell a lie about itself. 2. An allegation that a document was not executed on the date appearing thereon is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the second part of the first clause of s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code to bring it within the meaning of "making a false document." 3. A complaint must contain not only an allegation of the commission of an offence but also the basic facts and circumstances on which the allegation is being made in order to entitle a Magistrate to take cognizance of the same.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the application and quashed the proceeding, holding that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance upon the complaint filed by the complainant.
Monoj Kumar Mukurjee, J. On a complaint filed by Mrs. Indrani Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') the opposite party herein, the four petitioners and one Sri S. N. Banerjee have been summoned by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to stand trial for offences punishable under s. 465 read with s. 34 and s. 471 read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed this application under ss. 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding arising out of the said complaint.
2. At all material times the complainant was an employee of K.L.M Royal Dutch Airlines ('Company' for short) in its Calcutta office; and the petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 3 are its General Manager, Sales Manager and Accounts Manager respectively for India, Nepal and Bangladesh while the petitioner no. 4 is its Regional Manager at Calcutta On February 24, 1989, the complainant was placed under suspension by the Company and on March 9, 1989 was served with a chargesheet containing four charges, second of which reads as under :
"It has been reported that the agent/ERA Travels applied for the refund of ticket 2407576755/6 for the unused stretch for which the extra commission calculated amounted to Rs. 1510/-. This amount was handed over to you on January 6, 1989 by the agent. However, this amount -has not been accounted for by you in the book,."
3. By her letter dated March 18, 1989, the complainant showed Cause against the chargesheet ; and in controverting the above quoted charge she stated that on January 6. 1989 she was at Bhubaneswar and that she did not receive the Sum of Rs. 15.0/- or any Part thereof from M/s. ERA Travels or anybody else. Thereafter the Company by its letter dated May 15, 1989 informed the complainant that the date "January 6, 1989 as appearing in the above quoted charge be read as January 5, 1989 as records indicated that it was a typographical error.
4. A domestic enquiry was thereafter held in which the Company besides examining other witnesses examined Sri S. N. Banerjee (the other accused;, Managing Partner of ERA Travels, Patna to prove the above quoted charge. In his examination, he stated, inter alia, that on February 3, 1989 he had given a letter to Sri Nevil D. Monie (the petitioner no. 4 herein) confirming that a sum of Rs. 1510/- was refunded to Mrs. Indrani Mukherjee (the complainant) in cash on January 6, 1989. He further stated that sometimes in March, 1989 the Company wanted him to recheck when the money was handed over to Mrs. Mukherjee. He then checked his records and found that the money was actually handed over to Mrs. Mukherjee on January 5, 1989 and not on January 6, 1989 as mentioned in his letter dated February 3, 1989. Sri Banerjee lastly stated that he wrote another letter on March 30, 1989 to the Company confirming that the money was handed over to Mr. Mukhetjee on January 5, 1989 and not on January 6, 1981.).
5. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report adjudging the complainant guility of all the four charges levelled against her; and relying upon the same the Company terminated her service, with effect from June 5, 1989. Thereafter, impugned complaint was filed on June 14. 1989.
6. The gravamen of the complaint is that with a view to illegally terminating the services of the complainant, owing to her refusal to collude with the petitioners in their sinister design to violate income tax and other laws; they entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to forge documents and with that ulterior object in view made the two forged documents dated 3.2.89 and 30.3.89 and used the same to support the abovequoted charge.
7. Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, for what they were worth, did not make out any offence whatsoever, far less offences under Ss. 465/34 and 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code for which the p
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
