Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA
Deneth Piumakshi Wedarachchige – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and basis of the case against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the validity of charges against the petitioner. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [For short, ‘CrPC’], read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following prayers: -
BACKGROUND
“…….
3. That during the course of investigation, the original Passport of accused was sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. As per the examination report of Departure sticker pasted on Page No. 33, it is observed that there are marks of overwritings on the short signature(initial) and figures of dates at both the places, it is again observed that existing figures of date in upper row at place of month are not the original figures. On decipherment the original figures of month could be read as ‘12’ in place of ‘11’. Similar overwritings were found at Page No. 34 on figures of date and signature while on Page No. 35, it was observed that it was not the original Visa sticker but an imitated coloured copy of Page No. 09. It can be inferred from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory th
The judgment establishes that mere alteration of a passport without fraudulent intent does not constitute forgery under IPC sections relevant to cheating and document alteration.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused for personal vendettas, requiring clear evidence of criminal intent for prosecution under IPC.
(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 ‘....
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
(1) Cheating and forgery – While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish guilt of accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that alle....
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The court upheld conviction for forgery despite the absence of economic loss, emphasizing harm to institutional integrity as sufficient for fraud under Section 465 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
