Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.
Abhijit George S/o George - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 612 OF 2018
Decided On : 15-01-2025
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant to the case:
The appellant, Abhijit George, was convicted under Section 471 IPC for knowingly using a forged driving licence as genuine during a vehicle check. The evidence established that the driving licence was not issued by the competent authority and was identified as forged by the Regional Transport Office (!) (!) .
The police officers' testimonies regarding the seizure of the forged document and their verification process were found to be reliable and trustworthy, supporting the conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The accused had no plausible explanation for possessing or using the forged driving licence, and his act was deemed fraudulent and dishonest, fulfilling the criteria for offence under Section 471 IPC (!) (!) .
The original sentence of one year of simple imprisonment was upheld by the appellate court, but the court noted the importance of considering the accused's previous conviction and the time elapsed since the incident (!) (!) .
The court decided not to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, given the accused's prior conviction, but it reduced the sentence from one year to three months of simple imprisonment, with the fine of ₹3,000 to remain unchanged (!) (!) (!) .
The conviction for the offence under Section 471 IPC was confirmed, and the sentence was modified to reflect the reduced imprisonment period (!) .
These points encapsulate the court's findings, reasoning, and final decision regarding the conviction and sentencing of the accused based on the evidence and legal principles involved.
ORDER :
Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.582/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Mananthavady and he is the appellant in Crl.A.No.106/2015 of the Sessions Court, Wayanad. In this revision, he calls in question the conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
2. In brief prosecution case is that on 1.6.2010 at around 12.15 pm. near Government High School at Mananthavady while the Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady intercepted the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-12E/3409, for vehicle checking, A1 who was the driver of the said autorickshaw produced a forged driving licence in his name as genuine. As per the prosecution case, it was A2 to A7 who aided A1 in forging the driving licence. Accused 1 to 7 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
3. During trial, A7 died and the charge against him abated. After trial, the learned Magistrate found A2 to A6 not guilty and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. A1/revision petitioner herein was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- with default custodial sentence of one month. A1 was found not guilty under Section 468 IPC and was acquitted of the said offence. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 471 IPC was confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.106/2015.
4. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/A1 preferred this revision contending that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge failed to analyse the evidence in its correct perspective; that there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner/A1 forged any driving licence and used it as genuine and therefore, the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting the 1st accused.
5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge and contended that there is ample evidence to prove that the accused was in possession of a forged driving licence and he used the same as genuine; that the prosecution could establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 471 IPC and there are no reasons at all to interfere with the finding of conviction and sentence against A1.
6. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/A1 warrants any interference by this Court.
7. PW6, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady is the detecting officer. He testified that on 1.6.2010, while he along with his police party conducted the vehicle checking near Government High School, Mananthavady and when they intercepted the autorickshaw bearing No. KL-12E/3409 driven by A1 and asked A1 to show the driving licence for verification, A1 produced Ext.P1 fake driving licence. According to PW6, A1 was an accused in another crime namely Crime No.273/2010 of Mananthavady Police Station and during the investigation of the said case, it was revealed that A1 had no driving licence and therefore, when A1 produced Ext.P1 driving licence during vehicle checking, PW6 enquired about its genuineness with the Regional Transport Office, Kalpetta and upon verification it was revealed that Ext.P1 licence was not issued from there; that Ext.P1 is a fake and forged one. Accordingly, PW6 arrested A1 and took into custody of Ext.P1 as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. Ext.P3 is the arrest memo. Ext.P5 is the FIR. PW2 is a witness to Ext.P2 seizure mahazar and Ext.P3 arrest memo.
8. PW1 who was a Civil Police Officer attached to the Mananthavady Police Station also testified in tune with PW6. He too testified that when the autorickshaw driven by A1 was intercepted for checking, A1 produced Ext.P1 driving
The court upheld the conviction under Section 471 IPC for using a forged driving licence as genuine, confirming that the evidence established the accused's knowledge of the forgery.
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a document is forged and that the accused produced it; absence of such evidence renders conviction unsustainable.
Procedural irregularities in criminal trials can result in quashing convictions if fair trial principles are violated.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death and injuries due to negligent driving, confirming that evidence established the accused's rash conduct while driving a bus.
The onus of proof that the accused brought forth a forged document with a view to cheating rested with the prosecution, and the vital link in the chain of circumstances against the accused was essent....
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The prosecution must conclusively prove the accused's knowledge of a forged document for a conviction under IPC sections; mere submission of a document does not establish guilt.
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
