2015 (5) TMI 1203 - HC - Indian Laws

Forgery - cheating - Confirmation of the authenticity of documents submitted by the respondent - HELD THAT - There is no legal infirmity in the same. Sitting in this jurisdiction after the dismissal of revision petition, there is no scope our interference unless the orders passed by the trial Court or revisional Court are perverse and against the law. No such material is available in this regard. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge of accused in a criminal case involving forgery of a medical degree.
2. Examination of evidence and verification reports from the Embassy of India and People's Friendship University of Russia.
3. Legal validity of the documents and certifications provided by the university officials.
4. Review of the case by the Revisional Court and the conclusion reached.
5. Assessment of the trial court and revisional court orders for any legal infirmities.

Issue 1: Discharge of accused in a criminal case involving forgery of a medical degree:
The accused had been charged under Sections 420/468/471 IPC for allegedly using a forged medical degree. The trial court discharged the accused, and a criminal revision petition was filed, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 13th November, 2014.

Issue 2: Examination of evidence and verification reports:
The verification report from the Embassy of India stated that the diploma in question was never issued to the accused by the People's Friendship University of Russia. However, the court noted that the information provided by the Embassy of India was not conclusive evidence as it was not directly from the university itself. The court highlighted the lack of direct verification from the university and the absence of conclusive proof of forgery based on the documents presented.

Issue 3: Legal validity of documents and certifications:
The Vice-Rector of People's Friendship University of Russia had provided a letter stating that the degree in question was not issued to the accused. The court emphasized that the unsigned nature of the document and the lack of proper authorization raised doubts about its validity. It was noted that without certification from the university itself, the document could not be considered as definitive proof of forgery.

Issue 4: Review by the Revisional Court:
The Revisional Court re-examined the case and concluded that the documents and certifications provided did not establish a prima facie case of forgery against the accused. The court highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence and the absence of direct certification from authorized university personnel, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Issue 5: Assessment of trial and revisional court orders:
The High Court reviewed both the trial court and revisional court orders and found no legal infirmity in their decisions. The High Court stated that unless the lower court orders were perverse or against the law, there was no scope for interference. As no such material was found, the petition was dismissed accordingly.