Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, CJ.
Raju Paul - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 127 of 2005Decided On : 11-07-2014
Forgery - Employment - IPC 417, 465, 471 - The court found the accused guilty of using a forged document to obtain employment, leading to a conviction under Section 471 IPC for cheating. However, the court held that there was no evidence to prove that the accused forged the document, thus no offence under Section 465 IPC was made out.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner approached the complainant for a job as a driver and showed a photocopy of a driving licence, which was later found to be forged. The complainant was deceived into giving the petitioner a job based on the forged document.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of cheating under Section 471 IPC but held that there was no evidence to prove that the accused forged the document, leading to the dismissal of the offence under Section 465 IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused used a forged document to obtain employment and whether he was guilty of cheating under Section 471 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused used a forged document to obtain employment, leading to a conviction under Section 471 IPC for cheating. However, the court found no evidence to prove that the accused forged the document, resulting in the dismissal of the offence under Section 465 IPC.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 471 IPC for cheating and ordered the probation officer to submit a report on whether the petitioner should be released on probation.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, CJ.1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 34(2) of 2004.
By this Judgment, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and the Judgment of the learned Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. Case No. 1048 of 2001 convicting the accused under Sections 417, 465 and 471 IPC and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the offences has been upheld. The sentences ordered to run consecutively.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that a complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Shri Sushil Ch. Shom. The gist of the complaint was that in the first part of December, 2001, the petitioner Raju Paul approached the complainant for being given a job as a driver. While praying for a job, the petitioner had shown the photocopy of his driving licence to the complainant. According to the complainant, he on the basis of the said photocopy of driving licence engaged the petitioner as a driver, but asked him to produce the original driving licence. The petitioner promised the complainant that he would produce the original driving licence, but on pretext of the other he did not produce the same. When for more than 15 days the original licence was not produced, the complainant became suspicious and went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner and found out that the driving licence No. 14371, photocopy of which had been shown to him by the petitioner was not in fact issued in his name, but the driving licence of this number had been issued in favour of one Santosh Das on 30th November, 1981. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son went to the police station and lodged a complaint at the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was filed. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this petition.
3. Though in a revision petition, it is not necessary to go through the entire records, to satisfy myself I have perused the entire records.
4. P.W. 1 is the complainant. He has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that he employed the petitioner after the petitioner told him that he had a valid driving licence. When the complainant asked the petitioner to produce the original licence, he first stated that the same was lying with his father, who had gone to Bangladesh. According to the complainant, he asked the petitioner again and again to produce the original licence, but when he failed to do so for more than a fortnight, he went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner along with the petitioner and when the photocopy of the driving licence was shown, it was found that no such licence exists in favour of the petitioner. He also states that after the complaint was lodged, the photocopy of the driving licence was recovered from the driver. P.W. 2 is the son of the complainant and has also fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 is the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, who was posted as Assistant Transport Commissioner on 25.03.2002. Her statement is quite evasive and does not help any party. P.W. 5, who at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Transport Commissioner has clearly stated that driving licence bearing serial No. 14371 was issued on 30th November, 1981 in favour of one Santosh Das. He has also stated that no such licence was issued in the name of Raju Paul. The evidence of P.W. 6, the investigating officer is only relevant for the purpose of proving the recovery of the licence.
5. Both the courts have come to clear cut finding of fact that the petitioner approached the complainant for a job. It is also proved that job was given to him by the complainant. According to the prosecution, the driving licence on the basis of which the petitioner obtained the job was a forged document and used by the petitioner for an illegal purpose. It is also alleged
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
