Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2529
2011(72) ACC 864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J.
Vijendra Chaudhary – Applicant
Versus.
State of Uttaranchal and another – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 2006
Decided on : 03.08.2010
Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State.
An advocate cannot be held responsible for the offense of forgery unless there is evidence of his wrongful intention in producing the forged document.
Headnote:
Forgery - Indian Penal Code - 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code related to forgery, including sections 420, 466, 467, 468, and 471. It highlighted the importance of evidence and wrongful intention in proving the offense of forgery. The court emphasized the role of an advocate in advising the client and the lack of evidence to prove the advocate's wrongful intention in producing the forged document.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a forged death certificate produced in a mutation proceeding for land inheritance. The advocate, Vijendra Chaudhary, was charged under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code for his involvement in producing the forged document.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove the advocate's wrongful intention in producing the forged document. It emphasized the advocate's role as a legal adviser and the lack of evidence against him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the advocate could be held liable for producing a forged death certificate in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the advocate cannot be held responsible for the offense of forgery unless there is evidence of his wrongful intention in producing the forged document. It emphasized the lack of proof of the advocate's wrongful intention and the role of an advocate as a legal adviser.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the order taking cognizance of the offense against the petitioner.
Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J.
1. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by applicant challenging the order dated 23.01.2006 vide which he has been chargesheeted under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ajit Singh had moved an application before Naib Tehsildar, Jaspur along with death certificate of Amrik Singh issued by Gram Pradhan stating that land bequeathed by Amrik Singh be mutated in his name. During the said proceedings, Sukhbir Singh, son of Amrik Singh appeared as witness and deposed that his father Amrik Singh had died on 12.01.2000. He was living separately from his sons namely Sukhbir Singh and Jagtar Singh and Ajit Singh was looking after his father. Being happy with Ajit Singh, Amrik Singh bequeathed the land measuring 0.809 hectare in khasra Nos. 114, 116, 131, 132 in revenue record situated at village Gari Husain in favour of Ajit Singh. He identified the signatures of his father on the said WILL. Balbir Singh, who also appeared as witness, stated that Amrik Singh died on 12.01.2000 and he had bequeathed his land measuring about 2 acres in favour of Ajit Singh. He was one of the attesting witnesses to the WILL. The said mutation proceedings were rejected by Naib Tehsildar mainly on the ground that death certificate of Amrik Singh had not been issued by Block Development Officer but the same had been issued by Gram Pradhan only and therefore, it was not acceptable.
3. Since aggrieved Ajit Singh filed an appeal challenging the said order before Assistant Collector specifically mentioning that the Naib Tehsildar erred in not accepting the death certificate submitted by the appellant. According to the appellant that certificate was issued by Gram Pradhan only. The said appeal was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Jaspur and Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that as per death certificate submitted by the appellant Amrik Singh died on 12.01.2000 however, it has been revealed that Amrik Singh is still alive and had gone abroad about 7-8 year ago. It has been further mentioned that wife and sons of Amrik Singh have sold the property in favour of Ajit Singh and Ajit Singh in order to save stamp duty has prepared a forged WILL. It is further concluded that even the death certificate of Amrik Singh issued by Block Development Officer has not been submitted by Ajit Singh. It has further been observed that other co-sharers of Amrik Singh in connivance with appellant Ajit Singh have prepared a forged death certificate.
4. On enquiry it was found that no death certificate was issued with regard to death of Amrik Singh, therefore, it is proved that forged death certificate of Amrik Singh has been produced in the court. Thus, appeal was dismissed. On the basis of findings of Assistant Collector, Jaspur a complaint was submitted by Block Development Officer regarding the forged death certificate of Amrik Singh produced by Vijendra Chaudhary before Assistant Collector, Jaspur. Sri Vijendra Chaudhary, advocate, who appeared on behalf of Ajit Singh in an appeal against the order dated 02.05.2005 passed by Nail Tehsildar, who rejected the application for sanction of mutation on the basis of WILL of Amrik Singh made in favour of Ajit Singh.
5. On the basis of complaint, challan was submitted before Magistrate, thus, applicant Vijendra Chaudhary has been chargesheeted under sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 IPC and summon has been issued against the applicant vide order dated 23.01.2006. Since aggrieved, applicant has filed present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner simply appeared as Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajit Singh and whatever documents were handed over by the appellant Ajit Singh to him were produced
