Back
of Disputed Gift Deed Does Not Make One : AP High Court
In a significant ruling reinforcing the limits of criminal liability for document witnesses, the has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals who were implicated solely for attesting an allegedly fraudulent Gift Deed. Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that without specific allegations of , cannot constitute an offence under the .
The Case at a Glance
The dispute stemmed from a Gift Deed (Document No. 2820/2012) registered on . The complainant alleged that the deed was fraudulently created by the main accused, leading to a charge sheet under , , , , and read with .
Petitioners Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar and Paleti Srinivasa Rao were arraigned as Accused Nos. 8 and 9. Their only alleged connection to the offence was that their signatures appeared as attesting witnesses on the disputed document. The charge sheet, filed after a full investigation, contained no further allegation of any act or knowledge on their part.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners, , argued that the law is well settled: an cannot be held merely for signing a document. He pointed out that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet attributed any specific role to his clients beyond attestation. The allegations were, in his words, "," failing to meet the threshold for proceeding to trial.
The State, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor , countered that the veracity of the allegations should be tested during trial. , counsel for the , similarly urged the court to let the trial run its course.
Court's Legal Analysis: Attestation ≠ Consent
The High Court found the petitioners' submissions compelling, noting that the only reference to them in the charge sheet was:
"the document was attested by A8 & A9."
Beyond this, there was nothing to suggest they had any role in the alleged conspiracy, forgery, or .
Justice Gedela relied on a consistent line of precedents holding that attestation, by itself, does not fix the witness with knowledge of the document's contents or imply consent to the transaction. The court cited the 's own decision in
, where it was observed that
"by attesting the documents, it cannot be said that thereby they caused
to the
."
Similarly, in
, the had quoted the 's view that attestation
"proves no more than that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness."
The 's ruling in
was also noted, where proceedings against attestors were quashed on the same principle.
Key Observations from the Bench
"As could be seen, the Courts have consistently held that the cannot be held liable for merely attesting the documents."
"Neither in the F.I.R nor in the charge sheet, which is filed after a complete investigation, except bald allegations that the petitioners stood as to the document No.2820/2012, dated , nothing else is stated and the allegations are omnibus and does not constitute any offence."
"This Court is of the considered opinion that is made out against petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9."
The Final Decision and Its Implications
Applying the principles from the 's landmark decision in , the High Court concluded that the allegations, even when , did not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioners. The proceedings in C.C. No. 546 of 2018 before the , were thereby quashed insofar as they concerned Accused Nos. 8 and 9.
The ruling underscores a crucial safeguard: individuals who merely witness a document cannot be dragged into criminal trials without specific evidence of their involvement in the wrongdoing. This judgment provides clear guidance for trial courts and investigating agencies to refrain from naming attestors as accused based solely on their signature, reinforcing the distinction between civil attestation and criminal culpability.
