The prosecution must conclusively prove the accused's knowledge of a forged document for a conviction under IPC sections; mere submission of a document does not establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MAHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting-aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2020, charge sheet dated 06.06.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1579 of 2020, State Vs. Mohd. Abbas , under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC , pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.

2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, as follows:-

Applicant herein is the owner of the Truck in question, bearing registration no. UK04E/9756, which was involved in an accident case dated 25.03.2012. In this case, an FIR was lodged on the direction of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 05.11.2019 in which it was alleged that the applicant has filed a forged driving licence of his driver in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No. 4 of 2018. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was the owner of the truck and the driver of the vehicle namely Farman @ Saddam has provided the driving licence bearing Licence No. 3732/Farrukhabad/2005 to the applicant at the time when he was engaged as a driver by the applicant and the applicant, in a bonafide manner, submitted the same in the MACT concerned. It is further submitted that it was not possible for the applicant (owner of the vehicle) to get verification of the driving licence from the transport offices of the different parts of the country at the time of engaging the driver. Finding the driving licence to be genuine, the applicant submitted the same to the MACT concerned, thus, there is no fault on part of the applicant (owner of the vehicle) as he was not aware that the same was the fake licence and the driver himself is only responsible and liable for producing the fake license to the applicant. It is thus further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated in the catena of judgments that if the driver produces a license, which on the face of it look genuine, the owner of the vehicle (employer) is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the license unless there is cause to believe otherwise. In this case also, there is no material on record to establish that the applicant had any cause to investigate about the authenticity of the driving license of the driver, which he submitted before the MACT concerned later. Therefore, no offence could be made out against the applicant under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC against the applicant

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant has committed a serious offence by producing the forged driving licence before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tallital, District Nainital.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 , in its paragraph no. 110, has broadly dealt with the similar issue. For ready reference, paragraph no. 110 is extracted hereinbelow:-

“110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:

(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of