Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36397
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 759/2004
The court reaffirmed that forgery with intent to deceive is a serious offence under IPC, with emphasis on the sufficiency of witness testimony and corroborative evidence in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Offence - IPC Section 465, 468, 471 - The court upheld a conviction under Section 468 of the IPC for forgery with intent to cheat, establishing that the accused forged a salary certificate by impersonating a judicial officer, demonstrating clear fraudulent intent.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, a peon in a judicial office, was accused of forging a salary certificate to act as a surety in a financial transaction. Following investigations, he was convicted for forgery under Section 468 IPC after the genuineness of the certificate was confirmed as false.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction, stating that the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and sufficient to support the charge of forgery, notably supporting signatures from two witnesses who confirmed the document as forged.
Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the revision petitioner based solely on comparison of signatures and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that evidence of acquaintance with the signatures was credible enough to establish guilt and that the comparison of signatures served as corroborative evidence, rather than being the sole basis for conviction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.
O R D E R
The Sub Inspector of Police, Moovattupuzha police station in Crime No.595/2002 prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolenchery accusing offences under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 IPC . The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 468 . Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years while acquitting him for the other offences.
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.485/2003 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), by the impugned judgment dated 31.1.2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
3. The prosecution case is that the revision petitioner was : 2:
working as a Peon attached to the office of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, wherein PW1 was the Presiding Officer. PW1 got Ext.P3 letter from the Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprise, Mattanchery, who was examined as PW7, requesting verification of the salary certificate of the revision petitioner said to have been produced before PW7 offering the revision petitioner as a surety for a kuri in which one Kamarudeen was the subscriber. On verification, it was found that no such salary certificate was issued from the office to the revision petitioner. So request was made to PW7 to forward the salary certificate produced before PW7. Accordingly, PW7 forwarded Ext.P2 salary certificate to PW1. On verification, it was found that Ext.P2 was purporting to be a salary certificate issued by PW1 under his signature and seal of the court. Though the seal of the court and his designation seal affixed on Ext.P2 are that of originals, the signature of PW1 was found forged. Ext.P2 also contains the signature of the revision petitioner. The salary particulars recorded in Ext.P2 were found not true. Though PW1 made an attempt to get clarification from the revision : 3:
petitioner, he was found absconding from the office. Therefore, PW1 sent Ext.P1 complaint to the Station House Officer, Moovattupuzha Police Station. PW9, a Head Constable, who was in charge of the police station, on getting Ext.P1, registered the case for which Ext.P6 First Information Report was prepared. PW6, the Sub Inspector, took over the investigation. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Moovattupuzha. Under orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kolenchery.
4. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance. After hearing either side, charge for the above said offences was framed, read over and explained to which the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the revision petitioner was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating : 4:
evidence and advanced a plea of total innocence. He further stated that he did'nt know to write English and that he had no connection with Ext.P2 and that he was falsely implicated. Though he was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was adduced. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion of guilty.
Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as above.
5. I have heard Adv.Sri.Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Sareena George, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the judgment imp
