Back
2002 Supreme(Gau) 444
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
I.A.Ansari, J.
Pura Lodar -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare Dist. -Respondent
Crl.Revn.No. 42 (AP) of 2002
Decided On : 11-10-2002
P.K.Tiwari, N.Lowang
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Law - Section 468 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 468 IPC - Summary: The court discussed the legal provisions of forgery under Section 468 IPC and emphasized the elements required to establish the offence of forgery. The court highlighted the definition of forgery, the requirement for a document to be false, and the need for dishonest or fraudulent intent. The court also distinguished between preparation and attempt to commit an offence, emphasizing the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ultimately quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused-petitioner under Section 468 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner was convicted under Section 468 IPC for allegedly getting cash memos of petrol pumps printed without authority. The trial court found the charge proved and sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and a fine. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence, leading to the petitioner's approach to the High Court through revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence of forgery under Section 468 IPC. The court emphasized the distinction between preparation and attempt to commit an offence, and highlighted the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. The court concluded that the accused-petitioner's actions constituted preparation and not an attempt to commit forgery, ultimately leading to the quashing of the conviction and the petitioner's acquittal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of the legal provisions of forgery under Section 468 IPC, the distinction between preparation and attempt, and the burden of proof in criminal trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions of forgery, the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the distinction between preparation and attempt to commit an offence. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish the elements of the offence and highlighted the accused's right to maintain silence without it being treated as a substitute for the burden of proof.
Final Decision: The court quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused-petitioner under Section 468 IPC, cancelling the bail bond and discharging the surety.
Based on the provided legal document, the court emphasized that establishing dishonesty and intent is fundamental to proving the offence of forgery under Section 468 IPC. Dishonesty involves acting with a fraudulent mindset, such as knowingly creating or possessing false documents without proper authority, with the aim of causing harm, supporting a claim, or facilitating fraud (!) (!) (!) .
The document clarifies that for a document to be considered false and thus constitute forgery, it must be made dishonestly or fraudulently with the specific intent to cause damage, injury, or to support a fraudulent claim. Importantly, mere possession or preparation of materials that could potentially be used for forgery does not automatically establish dishonesty or fraudulent intent unless the individual actively converts these materials into a false document or uses them in a manner that supports fraudulent purposes (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the burden of proving dishonesty and intent rests on the prosecution. The accused's silence or lack of explanation cannot be construed as evidence of dishonesty unless there is direct or circumstantial proof of fraudulent intent. Merely obtaining or possessing blank or unsigned documents, without further acts demonstrating their use or conversion into false documents, does not suffice to prove dishonest intent (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles underscore that dishonesty and fraudulent intent must be established through clear evidence of active involvement in creating or using false documents with a wrongful purpose. The act of merely preparing or possessing materials that could be used for forgery, without evidence of their actual use or intent to deceive, does not automatically constitute dishonesty or fraudulent intent.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 03.11.99, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District, Itanagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 3/94, upholding the judgment and order dated 14.6,94 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First class), Papumpare District, Itanagar, in GR Case No. 124/93, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 468 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. In a nutshell, the material facts and various stages leading to the present revision may be, briefly, narrated as follows :-
(i) The accused-petitioner was charge sheeted by police for having allegedly committed an offence under Section 468 IPC and was accordingly brought for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Itanagar, in GR case No. 124/93. The case against the accused-appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated thus : Sub Inspector Suresh Singh of Naharlagun Police Station received information from confidential source that some unscrupulous persons were getting cash memos of petrol pumps of various locations printed at Naharlagun. During the course of inquiry conducted by him, the said police officer learnt that such cash memos were, indeed, being printed at M/s Capital Printers (hereinafter referred to as "the said press") Naharlagun. When the accused petitioner came, on 17.3.93, to the said press to collect the cash memos, which he had allegedly placed order for printing at the said press on 16.8.93, he was caught red-handed by the said police officer, while taking delivery of the said cash memos and the cash memo books were, vide seizure list (Ext.4), seized. The said police officer, then, lodged a written complaint, in this regard, on 17.8.93 itself, with the officer in-charge of Naharlagun PS. Treating this complaint (Ext. 5) as the FIR, Naharlagun PS case No. 46/93 (corresponding to GR case No. 124/93 aforementioned) under Section 468 IPC was registered against the accused petitioner and, on completion of investigation, police laid, as indicated hereinabove, chargesheet against the present petitioner, Pura Lodar, who was driver of the bus of State Tourism Department and also against one B. Rajendra.
(ii) During trial, charge under Section 468 IPC was framed against both the accused, but when the same was read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty thereto. In all, prosecution examined three witnesses, namely, the said police officer, one Smti Usha Rani Dutta, Manager of the said press, and Sri Dinesh Deka, a proof-reader of the said press. The defence also adduced evidence by examining three witnesses. On completion of the trial, learned trial court held the accused B Rajendra aforementioned not guilty of the charge and accordingly acquitted him, but as far as the present petitioner was concerned, the charge against him, according to the learned trial Court, was found proved. The present petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentence was passed against him as hereinbefore stated.
(iii) Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence afore-mentioned, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district, but by the judgment and order, dated 3.11.99, aforementioned, the learned Deputy Commissioner upheld the learned trial Court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has, now, approached this Court by way of this revision.
3. I have carefully perused the materials on record including the impugned judgments and orders. I have heard Mr. P K Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of the Opp. Party.
4. It was pointed out before the learned appellate Court and it has also been raised before this Court to
