Back
N.V.RAMANA, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Sheila Sebastian – Appellant
Versus
R. Jawaharaj – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment states that a conviction under section 465 IPC cannot rest solely on satisfaction of section 464 ingredients; ingredients of section 463 must also be satisfied. (!) - It clarifies that to constitute forgery under section 463, the accused must have made the false document under section 464; mere execution by someone else does not amount to forgery by the alleged maker. (!) (!) - The making of a false document requires that the maker either creates, signs, seals, or executes the document with intent to misrepresent, and the maker’s identity is essential; the imposter who creates the document cannot always be the maker for forgery to apply. (!) (!) - Section 464 defines making a false document and excludes liability where the accused is not the maker of the false document;Explanation 2 emphasizes that the person who makes the document must be the maker for liability under section 464. (!) (!) - The court adopted a strict interpretation of penal statutes; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) - The facts show that in this case the imposter created the PoA and forged documents; the accused could not be convicted under section 464 because they were not the maker of the false document. (!) - The decision emphasizes that a false document must be made by the accused; mere impersonation by another does not automatically convict the accused under forgery sections. (!)
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
These criminal appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 523 & 546 of 2005, wherein the High Court has allowed the criminal revisions and held that the conviction of accused respondents is not sustainable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’].
2. The case of the prosecution giving rise to these appeals, in brief, is that the complainant Mrs. Doris Victor (deceased mother of the appellant) was the owner of a plot insurvey numbers 1777/1A, 1778/1, 1779/1 and 1779/2 in Valliyoor village. The complainant alleges that, accused no. 1, (R. Jawaharaj), with the aid of an imposter who by impersonating as Mrs. Doris Victor created a Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘PoA’) in his name as if he was her agent. It was further alleged that, using the aforesaid PoA the accused no. 1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no. 2, (Rajapandi) for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. After getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of the property Mrs. Doris Victor
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.
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
