The court confirmed that presenting a forged document constitutes a serious offense warranting prosecution under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 380 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS’ for short hereafter) challenging the order dated 08.05.2015 in M.C.No.2/2014 arising out of O.P(MV) No.1701/2007 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (`MACT’ for short hereafter), Perumbavoor. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order impugned as well as the relevant documents, including the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. On the facts of this case, the appellant herein is the 1^st respondent in O.P(MV).No.1701/2007 on the files of the MACT, Perumbavoor. M.C.No.2/2014 was suo motu registered by the Tribunal when it found that Ext.B2 driving licence produced by the appellant herein before the court on receipt of I.A.No.3505/2009 in OP(MV).No.1701/2007 was fake and forged and it was detected when the insurer filed a petition to cause production of the driving licence particulars and its production. It was found by the Tribunal that Ext.B2 driving licence bearing No.7361/1998 was actually issued from Assistant Licensing Authority, Meenambakkam in favour of one Raghavendra B Sirsi and not in favour of the appellant. In the M.C.No.2/2014, while forwarding the order to the JFCM, Perumbavoor, which led to registration of C.C.No.923/2015 pending before the JFCM-I, Perumbavoor, the Tribunal observed in paragraphs 10 to 14 as under:

“10. So the only possible conclusion is that the respondent/R1 had offered Ext:B2 which is a falsely created document for using the same in evidence before this forum to avoid the legal consequences against her, that are likely to follow on it being revealed that she was not having a licence to drive the kinetic honda at the time of the accident.

11. The contention of respondent/R1 that the entries in the records maintained at the office of the licensing authority could be a mistaken entry cannot be accepted, owing to the presumption u/s 114(e) of the Evidence Act given to official records. It is also contended by the respondent /R1 that she had been handed over the licence by the driving school authorities who had given her lessons in driving.

12. How far the said version of respondent/R1 is true is a matter to be decided by the competent authority, after investigation in the matter. However the fact remains that the respondent/RI had offered a document which prima facie appears to be a fabricate record, and is not relating to the vehicle driven by her. As stated above no objections are raised by the respondent/R1 to the version of the Licensing authority who is stated to have issued the Ext:B1 licence to her, that no such licence is issued to her in the licence number shown in Ext:BL

13. So the only conclusion is that a document which appears to be bogus had been produced by respondent/R1 stating to be issued to her by the Licencing authority which is seen denied by the said authority as per the Ext:B2 letter, to be used in the proceedings as OP(MV) 1701/07 so as to bring out that she was having the licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, as an attempt to avoid the recovery right against her.

14. So the only course now open to this forum is to forward this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Perumbavoor requesting appropriate action against the respondent/R1 in OP(MV)1701/07 under the relevant provisions of Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, which provides penalty for fabricating false evidence.”

4. The prime c