IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 7170 of 2022 (RAVINDRA PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 22-11-2022 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Prasanjeet Chatterjee, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.15516/2022 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 419 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.700/-, under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.700/- and under Section 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.

10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation.

Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story during a recruitment process and written examination which was conducted in Ordinance Factory, Itarsi, the Security Guard of factory checked the admission card of one candidate namely Balram Kumar Rajwar. The candidate carrying the admission card of said candidate could not satisfy certain questions of Security Guard relating to name and address of the candidate. The photograph of candidate was not tallying with the photograph of person carrying the said admission card. Upon reporting the said incident to the factory administration, the Administration directed him to lodge a report in the Police Station. In turn, Police Station Pathrota registered a case i.e. Crime Signature Not Verified No.104/2013. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that except appellant all the other accused persons are absconding. Only appellant No.3 was acquitted by the Court below.

Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution could not produce iota of evidence to establish even a thread relation between the forged candidates and the appellant. Even assuming that the admission cards were forged, the persons who have prepared those cards alone can be held responsible. There is no material to establish that it was appellant who had undertaken the aforesaid exercise. Reliance is placed on 2018 (7) SCC 581 Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and another. Paras

19 to 23 were relied upon, which reads thus :-

"19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463 IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e. making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.

20. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 IPC. As Collin, J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill Signature Not Verified [Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310 (DC)] , a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that "Âœto make"Â, in itself involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.

21. It is observed in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929] that: (SCC p. 756, para

14)

"14. ...... a person is said to hav