Back
1977 Supreme(P&H) 112
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Calcutta Singh
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 1973,
Decided On : AUGUST 1, 1977
A person who is present when a forged document is executed by impersonation can be convicted under S. 467, read with S. 114, I. P. C., even if he is not present when the impersonator affixes his thumb-impressions on the document.
Headnote:
FORGERY - S. 467, I. P. C. - Abetment - S. 114, I. P. C. - Affidavit - Attestation - Identification of deponent - Presence of abettor - Conviction - Charge - Defect - S. 238(2), 537, Cr. P. C. - Sentence - Reduction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Calcutta Singh, was convicted under S. 467, read with S. 114, I. P. C. for forging an affidavit purporting to be executed by Bachan Singh complainant, in order to get the truck owned by Bachan Singh transferred in favour of his son and brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was an active participant in the execution of the forged affidavit, as he identified the deponent before the Oath Commissioner and his Clerk, and the deponent had affixed his thumb-impression as Bachan Singh. The court also held that the appellant could be convicted under S. 467, read with S. 114, I. P. C. even though he was not present when the impersonator affixed his two thumb-impressions on the first page of the affidavit, as he was present when the impersonator affixed his thumb-impression marked C on the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the affidavit in question comes within the ambit of forged document as defined in S. 464, I. P. C.? 2. Whether the appellant can be held liable for abetment in forging the said document? 3. Whether the appellant was prejudiced by the omission in the charge regarding his abetment in the forging of the document? 4. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant should be reduced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the affidavit in question does come within the ambit of forged document as defined in S. 464, I. P. C., as it purported to give authority to the appellant's son and brother to receive the truck of the complainant. 2. The court held that the appellant can be held liable for abetment in forging the said document, as he was present when the impersonator affixed his thumb-impression marked C on the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner, and he had identified the impersonator as Bachan Singh. 3. The court held that the appellant was not prejudiced by the omission in the charge regarding his abetment in the forging of the document, as the prosecution evidence, making out all the ingredients of the offence actually committed, was adequately adduced and the appellant availed of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 4. The court held that there are no extenuating circumstances to warrant any reduction in sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th July, 1973, whereby the present appellant, Calcutta Singh, was convicted under S. 467, read with S. 114, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 , or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 471, I. P. C. His brother, Jawala Singh, accused, was acquitted of the charge for both the offences under Ss. 467 and 471, I. P. C.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the present appellant, Calcutta Singh, who is the real brother of the wife of Bachan Singh complainant, sold truck No. PNL. 3676 to the complainant and the same was transferred in the latters name on 1st July, 1964. However, on account of mutual confidence and relationship, the appellant was allowed to manage and ply the truck thereafter as agent of Bachan Singh. In 1965, during the Indo-Pak conflict, this truck was requisitioned by the Army. The appellant was authorised to recover the amount in respect of this truck on behalf of Bachan Singh. However, the amount collected by the appellant from the Military Authorities from tune to time was not paid to Bachan Singh, nor was any account submitted despite repeated demands. Ultimately Bachan Singh filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the appellant. In his written statement the appellant set up a false plea that the truck in question had been sold by Bachan Singh to the appellants son, Malkiat Singh (who died during the trial of this case) and his brother, Jawala Singh, accused-acquitted for Rs. 22.000.00 . This false plea of the appellant aroused the suspicion of Bachan Singh complainant who started making enquiries in the matter, as a result of which he came to know sometime in October, 1969 that the appellant, his son, Malkiat Singh, and his brother Jawala Singh accused-acquitted had forged a fictitious affidavit at Samrala on 22nd April, 1968 purporting to be sworn by Bachan Singh complainant, which was got attested from an Oath Commissioner at Samrala. The said affidavit was attested on the basis of false identification of the deponent as Bachan Singh by the present appellant. This false affidavit was made the basis for getting the truck owned by Bachan Singh transferred in favour of Malkiat Singh and Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted) by producing the same in the office of the Licensing Authority, Mansa (Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Mansa). In fact Bachan Singh complainant had never presented any such affidavit for attestation by any Oath Commissioner, nor had he sold the truck in question to any person. Consequently a complaint was filed in the Court of Shri Laljit Singh Chatha, Magistrate 1st Class, Samrala, against Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted) for offences under Ss. 471, 419 465 and 467. read with S. 109, I. P. C. . and against the present appellant for offences under Ss. 418, 419, 465, 467 and 471, read with S. 409, I. P. C. After preliminary enquiry, both the accused were summoned under Ss. 467, 465 and 471, I. P. C. They were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for these offences, by the order of the committing Court, dated 14th December 1972. The prosecution evidence comprised of Mastan Singh (P. W. 1), Surjan Singh (P. W. 2), Atma Singh (P. W. 3), Baldev Singh Dhindsa (P. W. 4), Surat Ram (P. W. 5), Beant Singh (P. W. 6), Bachan Singh complainant (P. W. 7) and Gian Parkash Sharma, Handwriting and Finger-print Expert (P. W. 8).
3. In his statement under S. 342. Cr. P. C., the appellant, though admitted his relationship with Bachan Singh complainant, denied the main allegations of the prosecution against him. It was stated by him that Bachan Singh had only 1/4th share in the truck in question, while 3/4th share was of the appellant and his brother Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted), that after this truc
