Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR
Abdul Rashid Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 03.07.2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 468, 471 and 201 of RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order 06.07.2020, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.2000/ in proof of offence under Section 468 RPC, simple imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.2000/ for offence under Section 471 RPC and in proof of offence under Section 201 RPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months in terms of the impugned order dated 06.07.2020.
2) As per case of the prosecution, on 24.04.2011, SDPO, Shaheed Gunj Srinagar, received a communication dated 29.03.2011 from Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar, for verification and necessary action. Along with the said communication, a copy of communication dated 24.02.2011 from State Vigilance Organization was al
The prosecution failed to establish essential elements of forgery and use of a forged document, leading to the appellant's conviction being unsustainable.
The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts to the accused. In the absence of credible evidence linking the acc....
The use of a forged document to misrepresent qualifications for employment constitutes cheating and forgery under IPC and corruption under relevant statutes.
: While deciding acquittal appeal, High Court has to bear in mind that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of accused.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and follow proper procedures in framing charges; failure to do so may result in acquittal.
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 burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Point of law: Contents of the documents must be proved by primary evidence by producing original documents itself for the inspection of the court.
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
