Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar and S.S. Saron, JJ.
State of Punjab - Petitioner
Versus
Balraj Singh Takhar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 345-DBA of 2002.
Decided On : 3 July, 2003
Forgery - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120-B - The judgment discusses the forgery of a cheque of Rs. 40 lacs, the acquittal of the accused, and the subsequent appeal and revision filed by the State and the complainant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed the High Court to decide the matter on its merits. The Court considered the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, including the report of the Forensic Science Lab, and found that the trial court erred in closing the evidence of the prosecution without granting adequate opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. The judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
F.I.R. No. 31 of 1994 was registered against Balraj Singh Takhar accused respondent under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. The complainant, a permanent resident of the U.S.A., appointed the accused, her uncle, as general attorney to take care of her properties and bank accounts in India. The accused allegedly misappropriated properties and withdrew large sums from her bank accounts. The complainant cancelled the general power of attorney in 1990, and the accused allegedly forged a cheque of Rs. 40 lacs from her account. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to appeals and revisions filed by the State and the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial court erred in closing the evidence of the prosecution without granting adequate opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. The judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues: The principal question before the Court was whether the cheque of Rs. 40 lacs allegedly issued by the complainant was forged or genuine. The Court also considered the admissibility and reliance on the report of the Forensic Science Lab and the violation of the principles of natural justice in closing the evidence of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial court erred in not granting adequate opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence, and in not appreciating the provisions of section 293 of the Code in their right perspective. The Court also emphasized the need to draw a balance between granting time for the prosecution to conclude evidence and the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Criminal Appeal and the revision were accepted to the above extent, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
ORDER
Swatanter Kumar, J. - F.I.R. No. 31 of 1994 was registered against Balraj Singh Takhar accused respondent herein under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code under the jurisdiction of P.S. Division No. 5, Jalandhar.
2. According to the prosecution, the case was registered on the basis of an application received from Mrs. Geena Gill addressed to the S.S.P. Jalandhar. The complainant claims to be a permanent resident of U.S.A. and she had appointed the accused, her uncle, as general attorney in order to take care of her moveable properties and bank accounts in India. However, Balraj Singh Takhar allegedly indulged in misappropriation of properties and withdrew large sums from her bank accounts for his personal use. Having come to know of such activities of the accused, the complainant cancelled the general power of attorney in November, 1990, which she had executed in the year 1983. Various documents and even cheque book etc. were not returned by him to the complainant. In fact the accused forged a cheque of Rs. 40 lacs from the cheque book, of account No. SB/38 14990 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar. This fact came to the notice of the complainant after a registered letter was sent by the advocate on behalf of the respondent in relation to the said cheque and threatening to take proceedings under the Criminal law against the complainant. Placed in these circumstances, the complainant wrote a letter/complaint to the S.S.P., Jalandhar as afore- noticed. A case was registered and a police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution led considerable documentary and oral evidence. However, the complainant did not examine herself in the Court and finally vide judgment dated 13.9.1997, the learned trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. This judgment of acquittal gave rise to the two above noted cases. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1998 titled as Mohinder Kaur Gill v. Balraj Singh Takhar and another, challenging the order of acquittal in favour of the accused, while Criminal Appeal No. 345-DBA of 2000 was filed by the State against the same judgment.
4. The appellant State of Punjab filed Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, which was listed before a Division Bench of this Court for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Division Bench of this Court declined the leave vide order dated 30.6.1998 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998. The Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1998 preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.6.1998 observing that in view of the fact that appeal to leave in Criminal Misc. No. 127-MA of 1998 had been declined, the revision deserved to be dismissed.
5. Aggrieved from the said order, the State of Punjab had preferred a special leave petition to appeal before the Honble Supreme Court of India, where leave was granted and finally in Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 1999, State of Punjab v. Balraj S. Takhar, the Honble Supreme Court passed the following order :-
"Leave granted.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have granted leave to the State to file an appeal and to the complainant to file revision petition. We accordingly set aside the orders of the High Court and direct that the High Court will decide the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible. The appeals are allowed."
That is how both Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision have been placed for disposal before this Court.
6. At the very outset we may notice that after hearing the learne
AI
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
