Using a photocopy of a document, which is not genuine, to deceive and induce others to part with money falls within the ambit of forgery and cheating as defined under the IPC.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.71/2005 P.S., Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi registered on the allegation that one travel agent is charging huge amount of money from the innocent people desiring to go to America, wherein the police associated one Jigar Modi a victim of the Petitioner’s offence. On a trap being laid the Petitioner was apprehended on whose personal search one coloured photocopy of American Visa in the name of Upender Kumar Karsan Bhai was recovered from right side pocket of his pant which was seized. On apprehension, the Petitioner confessed that he along with co-accused had taken Rs. 6,10,000/- from Jigar Modi and his friend. During the investigation, the witness Jigar Modi handed coloured photocopy of US visa depicting the name and photo of Upender Kumar which had been shown and handed over to him and his friend Upender Kumar, by the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accused cheated Shri Upender Kumar Karsan Bhai and other persons representing that the accused Rajneesh is the official of the embassy and on this false pretext induced the said persons to pay the amounts to procure visa for them. Three other victim witnesses Sher Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Avtar Singh along with his son Kamalpreet Singh also joined the investigation and stated that co-accused Ashish Sharma who used the name Rahul @ Neeraj, along with the present Petitioner had an office at Vardhman Tower, Preet Vihar, Delhi. They all gave money (Rs.1 lac by each person) and the passports to the Petitioner and Ashish Sharma for arranging visas but the accused persons did not do so nor did they return the money and passports of these victims. In the meantime, the recovered coloured photocopy of US visa was verified from US embassy, New Delhi which was found to be fake and forged. The US embassy sent a communication dated 16th May, 2005 intimating that no visa bearing No. 20056955325107 was issued by their embassy to Shri Upender Kumar Karsan Bhai and the same is fake. Even as per the report of GEQD, which was submitted after examining an original visa taken from the American embassy, it has been opined that the visa mark Q1 (recovered from accused Nakul Kohli) is “Spurious in Nature.”

2. On a charge sheet being filed, the learned CMM framed the charges against the Petitioner under Sections 419/420/471/474/120B IPC. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner filed a revision petition, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 12th November, 2009. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the orders dated 12th November, 2009 passed by the learned ASJ and 15th December, 2008 passed by the learned CMM.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner during arguments did not challenge the charges framed under Sections 419/420/120B IPC and has only challenged framing of charges for offences under Sections 471/474 IPC. He contends that no offence punishable under Section 471 IPC can be made out as only a photocopy was being used and for an offence under Section 471 IPC to be attracted, it is essential that the document should be signed or executed. According to him printing or photocopying of a document does not attract the provisions of Section 471 IPC. Reliance in this regard is placed on Section 464 IPC wherein according to learned counsel for the Petitioner, printing or writing is not making a false document. According to the learned counsel if any accused passes on a photocopy, the same would amount to cheating only and not forgery. Reliance in this regard is placed on Pramatha Nath v. State, 52 Crl. L.J. 1480.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further states that since the incriminating document is a photocopy the same is not admissible in evidence in terms of Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act, being a secondary document and thus no charge can be framed against the Petitioner on the basis of the photocopy. Reliance is placed on Shashi La