The need for positive evidence to establish the maker of a false document and the exercise of sifting through the evidence to form an opinion of strong suspicion against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to dispense with the personal appearance in all further proceedings in C.C. No.5005 of 2018 till pending disposal of this quash petition in Crl.O.P. No. 2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB & CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai.)

1. The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C. No.5005 of 2018, which is taken on file for the alleged offences under Sections 466, 468, 471, 211, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and 465, 471 r/w 465 IPC, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and 201 of IPC filed Crl. M.P. No.17295 of 2021 to discharge him from the case. By an order dated 09.02.2022, the trial court found that there are prima facie materials against the accused to proceed by way of trial by framing charges and therefore, dismissed the discharge application, as against which the present revision is laid before this court.

2. Heard Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution and also perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this court through the gist of allegations and the charge levelled against the petitioner would submit that the crux of the allegation is that the petitioner, who was acting on behalf of a Russian company, which submitted a bid in the tender called for by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai, had submitted before the court in a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this court. A letter alleged to have been given by ISRO stating that the said company is exempted from paying Earnest Money Deposit. Therefore, by a judgment dated 14.10.2004, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.4103 of 2003 held as follows:-

"66. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the allegations of mala fide or demand of bribe have absolutely no basis. Equally the contention of the petitioner that by making such illegal demands, the public interest was thrown to the winds by the second respondent can only be characterised as shedding of crocodile tears by the petitioner. The present litigation was perpetrated by the petitioner or for that matter to be precise by the deponent to the writ petition affidavit purely out of personal interest. Therefore, we strongly condemn the action and the attitude of the petitioner in this regard. We would therefore, recommend to the appropriate authority of the first respondent to make a thorough probe in the affairs of the deponent to the writ petition affidavit keeping in mind that the Authorities of ISRO have disclaimed the letter dated 6.8.2003 furnished by the petitioner through the deponent and in the event of finding any cognizable offence committed by him, both in respect of the allegation as regards the demand of bribe alleged against the second respondent as well as certain Ministers and also the so-called forgery committed in regard to the letter dated 6.8.2003 said to have been issued by ISRO proceed against him as per law without any further loss of time."

Pursuant to the said direction, the case was registered and after completing of the investigation, the present final report is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even taking the materials produced by the prosecution on face value, there is no evidence that the petitioner had forged the actual letter and therefore, the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 are not made out in the absence of positive evidence of forgery against the petitioner. Once the petitioner cannot be punished for the offence of forgery, then without proving that the petitioner is the maker of the purported document, alleged offence of 420 r/w 511 IPC also should fail. In any event, the bid is made not by the petitioner individually but by the company, namely M/s. Khrunichev State Research and Product