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.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal under section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr. P.C. and/or ‘the Code’, for short), the State of Assam as the appellant has assailed, a judgment and order dated 31.7.2010 passed, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar (‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2009, whereby, the appellate court had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-accused and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the respondent-accused by the trial court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar (‘the trial court’, for short) in G.R. Case No. 569/1998. In G.R. Case No. 569/1998, the learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2009, had convicted the respondent-accused finding him guilty for the offence under section 468, Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC and/or ‘the Penal Code’) and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for another 1 month.

2. The investigation of the case was set into motion by a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by one Dinesh Chandra Biswas on 10.3.1998 before the Officer In-Charge, Silchar Police Station, Cachar. In the FIR, the informant had, inter alia, stated that he was living with his son and daughter-in-law in a house bearing holding No. 248 located in Ward No. 22 of Silchar town. He had, inter alia, stated that his younger brother, Bhupesh Chandra Biswas, i.e., the respondent-accused herein was living in a separate house within the same premises with the permission of the informant. The land, house holding number, water supply connection, electricity supply connection, etc., were in the name of the informant from the beginning. It was alleged, that the accused, without the knowledge of the informant and by forging the informant's signature, had submitted a no objection letter before the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) in order to obtain an electricity connection in his name and got one electricity connection in the name of the accused secretly without any notice to the informant. When the matter came to the knowledge of the informant, he submitted a written complaint before the authorities of the ASEB on 10.9.1997 and also met the officials of the ASEB raising his objections. The authorities in the ASEB did not accept his complaint first but later on, due to his repeated requests, they apprised the matter to him and advised him to take legal action. Accordingly, he stated to have filed the FIR.

3. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer In-charge, Silchar Police Station registered a case being Silchar Police Station Case No. 300/1998 (G.R. Case No. 569/1999) under section 468/420, IPC on 10.3.1998. During the course of investigation carried, out after registration of the FIR, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized a number of documents including the no objection letter. The alleged no objection letter was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Assam for examination and opinion. After obtaining a report from the FSL and on completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet under section 173(2), Cr. P.C. against the respondent-accused vide Charge Sheet No. 668/2000 dated 11.12.2000 finding a prima facie case against him under section 420/468, IPC. After receipt of the charge sheet, the process was issued to the respondent-accused for his appearance and to stand the trial. On appearance of the accused, the copies were furnished to the accused as per the provisions of section 207, Cr. P.C. by the learned trial court.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused under section 468, IPC and under section 420, IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution side, in order to bring home the charges, examined 4 Nos. of witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The informant, viz. Dinesh Chandra Biswas a