Back
: Failure to Produce Forged Document at Pre-Trial Stage Not Ground to Discharge Accused
In a significant ruling that reinforces the limits of pre-trial intervention, the has held that the mere absence of the original forged document in a chargesheet cannot be a ground to discharge an accused at the pre-trial stage. The bench, comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar , set aside a order that had discharged a woman accused of forgery, and restored the trial before the magistrate.
A Chequered History of Litigation
The dispute arose between neighbours in Goa. The appellant-informant, Antonetto J D'Souza, alleged that the first respondent, Aldila Braganza, and her late father-in-law had constructed a building using an interpolated copy of an approved plan. The informant lodged a complaint with the and later filed an FIR in under .
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in . The , found material and framed charges in . The accused challenged this before the , which dismissed her revision in . She then filed a criminal writ petition under before the (Goa Bench). A Division Bench dismissed that petition in , observing that the material collected by the investigating agency was sufficient for framing charges.
The Second Writ Petition and
Despite this dismissal, the accused filed another writ petition in before a Single Judge, re-agitating the same ground—that the original plan had not been produced. The Single Judge accepted her argument and discharged her, holding that without the original document, the forgery charge could not be sustained.
The
found this approach legally unsustainable. Justice Chandurkar, writing for the bench, noted that the Division Bench had already considered and rejected the same contention in the earlier round.
"The principle of '
' would apply as a ground of challenge raised earlier but was unsuccessful was sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party,"
the Court observed. It also held that the Single Judge's order violated
and exceeded the permissible scope under
.
Absence of Original Document Not Fatal
On the merits, the Court emphatically rejected the notion that forgery cannot be proved without the original document. Relying on the three-judge bench decision in
, the Court stated:
"We do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must in our view exclude all possibility of a
."
The Court further clarified that even if the original plan was not filed with the chargesheet, the prosecution could produce it later with the court's permission, citing
.
"If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or charge-sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court,"
the judgment said.
Key Observations
"Absence of the original document relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution."
"The entire proceedings would not be liable to be quashed without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to attempt to prove the charge at the trial."
"At the stage of framing charge, it would not be permissible to sift through the entire evidence forming part of the chargesheet with a view to find whether such evidence could result in conviction of the accused. It would be sufficient if ais raised against the accused on the basis of such material so as to sustain a trial."
Decision and Implications
The allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's discharge order, and restored Criminal Case No.90/S/ /F before the . The magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, expediting the matter given that the complaint dates back to . All contentions of the parties were kept open.
The ruling reinforces that pre-trial discharge is not a substitute for trial, and that the absence of a physical document does not, by itself, defeat a forgery prosecution. It also serves as a reminder that once a has decided an issue, a subsequent bench of the same court should not re-open it unless there is a clear legal basis.
