· 

Forged Debit Motes

Download
SC eJournal CrPC.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 366.4 KB

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 463, 464  - Debit notes  - "forging" - Section 463 speaks of "forgery" as being the making of a "false document" or "false electronic record", or a part thereof, to do the various things that are stated in that section -  Unless a person is said to make a false document or electronic record, Section 463 does not get attracted at all -  The making of a "false document" is dealt with in Section 464 of the IPC  -  The "First" category of Section 464 makes it clear that anyone who dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, can be said to make a false document -  This Court has held that assuming dishonesty or fraud, the second ingredient of the "First" category of Section 464 is that the document itself must be made by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority the person who creates the forgery knows that it was not made -  If the second ingredient is found missing, the offence of forgery is not made out at all - Debit notes that are said to have been "created" by the Respondents, were not "false documents" under Section 464 of the IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of some other person -  Since this basic ingredient of forgery itself is not made out, none of the sections that are sought to be relied upon in Chapter XVIII of the IPC can thus be said to be even prima facie attracted in the facts of this case. #2020 SCeJ 1557

 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 191, 192 - Debit notes  - "forging" - Complaints read as a whole do not make out a case under Section 463 and 464 of the IPC, but instead clearly attract the provisions of 191 and 192 of the IPC. For these reasons also, this submission must needs be rejected. #2020 SCeJ 1557 

SCe@journal

Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

Reports of Supreme Court and various High Courts

Full text with Headnotes through email / WhatsApp

 

plr@plronline.in / 9463598502

 

 

 

 FREE 

 

WITH PLR SUBSCRIPTION

 

Punjab Law Reporter

 

SUBSCRIPTION  2020

 

 (for 4 unbound volumes including Important Judgements)

 

Rs. 2800/-

 

SC e@journal with PLR Subscription 

 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) – Difference  - The document that is said to have been forged should be custodia legis after which the forgery takes place - Difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC -  Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies -  What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court - Contrasted with Section 195(1)(b)(i), Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC speaks of offences described in Section 463, and punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476 of the IPC, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court - What is conspicuous by its absence in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are the words "or in relation to", making it clear that if the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then the offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to the document being introduced in court proceedings. #2020 SCeJ 1557 [Para 19, 22, 29]

Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370  is clear authority for the proposition that in cases which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the document that is said to have been forged should be custodia legis after which the forgery takes place. (followed in Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. State of U.P and Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 519 ; C.P. Subhash vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 559 ; Kishorbhai Gandubhai Pethani vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2014) 13 SCC 539 and Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar vs. N.M. Dessai (2018) 5 SCC 422 . When Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC is attracted, the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah , which approved Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493, is not attracted, and that therefore, if false evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting Sections 191/192 of the I PC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as to validate a private complaint filed for offences made out under these sections. [Para 33]

 

(iI) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 195 –  If in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 of the CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC must be followed. #2020 SCeJ 1557 [Para 44]

 

 

(iii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 190 and 195  - Section 195 of the CrPC is an exception to the general provision contained in Section 190 thereof, and creates an embargo upon the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain types of offences enumerated under Section 195, which must be necessarily follow the drill contained in Section 340 of the CrPC. #2020 SCeJ 1557 [Para   26]

 

 

Write a comment

Comments: 0