Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Online)(Sikk) 5

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
S. K. Agnihotri, J
Kashikant Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.No.01 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Moulik, K.D. Bhutia, Ranjit Prasad
For the Respondents: Karma Thinlay Namgyal, S. K. Chettri, Pollin Rai

Forgery under Section 463 is complete upon the creation of a false document with the requisite fraudulent intent, regardless of actual loss or gain. Furthermore, an appellate court's power to impose a sentence is restricted by the jurisdictional limits of the trial court.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 474 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 28, 29, 386(a), 397, 401 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Forgery - Definition and ingredients - Forgery requires making a false document with specific intent to cause damage, injury, or to commit fraud - Actual gain or loss is not a prerequisite for the commission of forgery - Appellate court’s power to impose fine is limited by the sentencing power of the trial magistrate as prescribed by law. (Paras 24, 26, 30, 34)

(B) Sentencing - Limitation of jurisdiction - The Appellate Court in exercising its appellate jurisdiction is bound by the sentencing powers of the Court of first instance - A fine imposed by an appellate court exceeding the statutory limit of the trial magistrate is without jurisdiction. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
A criminal revision petition was filed challenging the judgment of an appellate court confirming conviction for forgery. Prosecution alleged that the petitioner created forged academic documents and marks statements, which were seized from his residence and business premises. The trial court convicted the petitioner under multiple sections of the penal code, while the appellate court partially set aside the decision, confirming conviction for forgery simpliciter, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a substantial fine.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the seizure of forged documents from the petitioner’s premises, coupled with the lack of explanation, established that they were manufactured by the petitioner. The court clarified that the absence of actual wrongful gain or loss does not negate the offence of forgery if the intent to facilitate fraud or cause injury exists.

Issues: The main issues were whether forgery is committed absent actual gain or loss, and whether the appellate court was empowered to impose a fine exceeding the sentencing limit prescribed for the trial magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of forgery requires specific intent to commit fraud or cause injury, not necessarily the realization of such gain. The appellate court, while reviewing a judgment, cannot impose a sentence, specifically a fine, that exceeds the statutory jurisdiction vested in the magistrate of the first instance.

Result: Petition partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence modified by reducing the fine to the statutory limit.

Table of Content
1. factual background and history of the criminal investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding insufficiency of evidence for forgery conviction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments concerning sentencing limitations and statutory evidence presumptions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court establishes possession of forged documents as proof of manufacturing. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. defining forgery under section 463 ipc regarding intent and document falsification. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. modification of sentence for jurisdictional compliance and sentencing limits. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

ORDER

(20^th June 2016)

S. K. Agnihotri, J

1. Questioning the legality and the validity of the judgment dated 05.02.2015 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2014 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, at Gangtok, East Sikkim, the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on a complaint made by one Mr. Madhav Sharma S/o of Mrs. Bishnu Maya Sharma, that he had received a forged marks statement, purported to have been issued by the Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE), Delhi from the convict/petitioner, herein, which was surrendered to the Vigilance Police, Gangtok and on the basis of the said complaint a search warrant was issued under the authority of Chief Judicial Magistrate (East & North) at Gangtok, on 19^th September, 2001.

3. On 20^th September, 2001, a search of the convict’s/petitioner’s residence at Tadong, Gangtok, was conducted, wherefrom, total (61) sixty one documents were seized, most of the said documents were of photocopies of the marks statement, admit cards etc of the various students. One photocopy of the admit card of Madhav Sharma was also obtained. On the same day, shop-cum-business premise owned by Mrs. Meena Jha, wife of the convict/petitioner was also raided, wherefrom, in total (60) sixty documents were recovered and seized, all containing admit cards, statement of marks of various persons. One admit card no.284 issued by the North Bengal University, in favour of the convict/petitioner for B.Ed Examination 1993 and also marks statement of the B.Ed Examination 1993 indicating him as passed and one more statement of marks of B.Ed 1995 from the same University wherein he was found failed, were also seized and recovered. Consequent thereupon, a Vigilance P.S. case No.RC-19/2001 dated 22.09.2001 under Section 468/120 B, of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) was registered. On completion of the investigation, it transpired that the convict/petitioner had forged marks statement of Madhav Sharma which was marked as (Exhibit P-16).

4. It was also noticed that the marks stated in the forged marks statement of Madhav Sharma was of one Mingma Doma Sherpa of Tathangchen Secondary School, Gangtok, East Sikkim and not of Madhav Sharma. In the investigation, it was also found that the convict/petitioner had forged the other marks statements of one Navin Dhakal of CBSE Class XII examination, Purna Kumar Sharma of Bihar Education Examination Board, Class X examination and Dhaka Devi Sharma of Bihar Education Examination Board, Class X along with other incidental documents. The charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Vigilance Case No. 04 of 2009 for trial for offences punishable under Sections 467/468/474 of IPC and under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 467/468/474 of IPC.

5. The Learned Judicial Magistrate held that the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 467/468 of IPC was not made out and as such the convict/petitioner was acquitted of the said offence. However, the convict/petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 474 of the IPC. He was sentenced to u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Online)(Sikk) 5

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIMS. K. Agnihotri, JKashikant Jha – AppellantVersusState of Sikkim – RespondentCrl.Rev.P.No.01 of 2015

Forgery under Section 463 is complete upon the creation of a false document with the requisite fraudulent intent, regardless of actual loss or gain. Furthermore, an appellate court's power to impose a sentence is restricted by the jurisdictional limits of the trial court.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
S. K. Agnihotri, J
Kashikant Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.No.01 of 2015