2018 (5) TMI 2148 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence of Forgery - attempt to transfer the property of complainant by executing a mortgage deed by using Power of Attorney - Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT - Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery Under Section 463, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction Under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed Under Section 463, implying that ingredients Under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients Under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted Under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to Rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, it is observed that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence Under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the Accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the Accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. This case on hand is a classic example of poor prosecution and shabby investigation which resulted in the acquittal of the Accused. The Investigating Officer is expected to be diligent while discharging his duties. He has to be fair, transparent and his only endeavour should be to find out the truth. The Investigating Officer has not even taken bare minimum care to find out the whereabouts of the imposter who executed the PoA. The evidence on record clearly reveals that PoA was not executed by the complainant and the beneficiary is the Accused, still the Accused could not be convicted. The prosecution could not succeed to prove the offence of forgery by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Apart from that, it is not as though the Appellant is remediless. She has a common law remedy of instituting a suit challenging the validity and binding nature of the mortgage deed and it is brought to our notice that already the competent Civil Court has cancelled the mortgage deed and the Appellant got back the property. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Interpretation of Section 464 IPC
3. Evidence and testimonies
4. Standard of proof in criminal trials
5. Role of the Investigating Officer

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
The criminal appeals were filed against the High Court's order which held that the conviction of the accused respondents under Section 465 IPC was not sustainable. The original conviction by the Judicial Magistrate was for forgery, with Accused No. 1 sentenced to 2 years of simple imprisonment and a fine, and Accused No. 2 sentenced to 1 year of simple imprisonment and a fine. The Sessions Judge upheld this conviction, but the High Court acquitted the accused, stating that the requirements of Section 464 IPC were not satisfied.

2. Interpretation of Section 464 IPC:
The High Court based its decision on the interpretation of Section 464 IPC, which defines the making of a false document. The court concluded that for forgery to be established under Section 465 IPC, it must first be proven that a false document was made under Section 464 IPC. The High Court observed that the accused did not make any false document themselves and thus could not be convicted of forgery.

3. Evidence and Testimonies:
The prosecution presented multiple witnesses to support their case:
- PW 1 (Narayanan Pillai), a document writer, testified about the creation and registration of the Power of Attorney (PoA) and mortgage deed.
- PW 2 (Irin Edward) informed the complainant about the forgery and assisted in filing complaints.
- PW 3 (Ramasubramanian), who assisted PW 1, corroborated the testimony.
- PW 4 (Ms. Latha), the Sub Registrar, confirmed the registration process involving the imposter.
- PW 6 (Mr. Nagaraja), another Sub Registrar, testified about the mortgage deed execution.
- PW 7 (Mr. Ramu), a forensic scientist, and PW 8 (Mr. Albonse Xavier), a fingerprint inspector, provided evidence of discrepancies in signatures and fingerprints.

4. Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials:
The Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused made false documents. The court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof.

5. Role of the Investigating Officer:
The judgment criticized the investigation as poor and lacking diligence. The Investigating Officer failed to trace the imposter who executed the PoA, which was crucial to proving the forgery. The court highlighted the importance of thorough and transparent investigations to ensure justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the accused, stating that the prosecution did not prove the offence of forgery under Section 464 IPC. The court acknowledged the appellant's suffering but stressed that penal statutes must be interpreted strictly. The appellant was advised to pursue civil remedies, noting that a competent civil court had already canceled the mortgage deed, and the appellant had regained the property. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.