AFR

Court No. - 34

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1856 of 1987

Revisionist :- Neki Ram

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Sahai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1.

Heard Sri Bhvya Sahai, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brijesh

Sahai, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P.

and perused the record.

2.

This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397

Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated

03.12.1987 passed by Sri Y.K.Singhal, Vth Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 1985

whereby appeal was dismissed and judgment and order dated

07.02.1985 passed by Sri Vishram Singh, Magistrate Nakur,

Saharanpur in Case No.502 of 1982 by which Revisionist was

convicted under Sections 466 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo

one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100 under Section 466

IPC, and, six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.50/- under

Section 471 IPC, has been confirmed. Both the sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

3.

Learned counsel for Revisionist contended that, if a document

of a Court is allegedly forged, no cognizance can be taken under

Section 466 IPC unless complaint is made by Court itself, which has

not been done in the present case. Therefore, entire proceedings are

illegal. He further submitted that Revisionist was a 'Peon' in Election

Tribunal, who was deputed duty of serving summons and this was a

part of an 'official duty' to be discharged by him, thus, without

sanction under Section 195 or 197 Cr.P.C., cognizance could not have

been taken. Since in the present case, no such sanction was obtained,

therefore, entire proceedings are illegal.

2

4.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that Section 466 IPC is applicable

where a document is forged, and purported to have been made by a

'public servant' in official capacity and therefore, it is rightly applied.

Further Section 195 Cr.P.C. has no application since 'Election

Tribunal' is not a 'Court' in terms of Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. Section

197 is also inapplicable since Revisionist is not a person who is to be

removed with the sanction of State or Central Government.

5.

I have examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for parties and perused the record.

6.

Sections 466 and 471 IPC, as applicable at the relevant time,

reads as under :

“466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.-

Whoever forges a document, purporting to be a record or

proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth,

baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public

servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be

made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an

authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any

proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of

attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and

shall also be liable to fine.”

“471. Using as genuine a forged document.-Whoever

fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document

which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged

document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had

forged such document.”

7.

On perusal of above provisions, I find that in order to attract

Section 466 IPC, following ingredients have to be shown :

(i)

The document is question was a forged document.

(ii)

It was forged by Accused;

(iii)

Such document is purported to be :

3

(a)

A record of the proceeding of Court of Justice;

(b)

A Register of Birth, baptism, marriage or burial.

(c)

A Register kept by public servant.

(d)

A certificate or document purporting to be made

by a public servant in his official capacity.

(e)

An authority to institute or defend a suit or take any

proceeding therein or to confess judgment,