The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a comprehensive legal code that lays down the laws and penalties for various criminal offenses in India. The IPC is divided into several chapters, each of which covers a specific type of offense. One of these chapters is Chapter XXII, which deals with offenses related to criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance. Section 468 of the IPC falls under this chapter and deals with the offense of forgery of record of court or of public register.
According to Section 468 of the IPC, whoever forges any document of a court of justice or of any register of birth, baptism, marriage, or burial, or any register kept by a public servant as such, or any certificate or license granted by a public servant as such, or any document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or any document purporting to be a copy of an original document or translation of an original document, with the intention of using it as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The offense of forgery of a court or public register is a serious crime in India, as it involves tampering with legal documents and records, which can have far-reaching consequences. Forging a document of a court of justice or a public register not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also undermines the trust of the public in the legal system. Similarly, forging a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity or a copy of an original document can lead to serious consequences, such as wrongful prosecution or wrongful acquittal of a person.
In order to prove the offense of forgery of a court or public register, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention to use the forged document as genuine. This means that the accused must have had the intention to deceive someone by presenting the forged document as genuine. It is not necessary that the accused must have actually used the forged document or that someone must have been deceived by it.
In conclusion, the offense of forgery of a court or public register under Section 468 of the IPC is a serious crime in India that is punishable by imprisonment and fine. The offense involves tampering with legal documents and records, which can have far-reaching consequences and undermine the integrity of the legal system.
IPC 468 Section of Indian Penal Code
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the innocence of the villagers has been misused to siphon the public money, we are not inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant. Now the parties have settled the matter. However, as observed by the High Court, during the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave the specimen signatures willingly. Section 467 of Indian Penal Code. Ram Banu Misra, 1980 2 SCC 343: AIR 1980 SC 791, that a suitable legislation be brought along the lines of Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1980, to provide for the investiture of Magistrates with powers to issue directions to any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures and handwriting but no such powers existed prior to such amendment. Appellant-Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak, Navgaon under Arki Sub-Division during said period, 1983 to 1986.
Section 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
This offence is also an aggravated form of forgery for which enhanced punishment has been prescribed. ADVERTISEMENTS: Where the accused, working as an Up-vaid in an Ayurvedic Aushadhalaya, was charged for preparing bogus medical bills for government servants, and there was concurrent finding that trap was laid and tainted money was recovered from him, bare denial on his part was not sufficient, and his conviction under sections 468 and 120-B of the Code was held to be proper. Therefore, depending on the merits of the case in getting the delay of more than 6 years condoned under section 473 Cr. Sir I was a medical student in Patiala, Punjab. In any event, even dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear oral evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in the loan application and other documents.
Criminal Action after 5 Years and Bar of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
So can we quash the case? If the trial court finds that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, then it can acquit you. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by relying on convincing evidence, oral testimony of witnesses amply corroborated by the documentary evidence and also the opinion of the handwriting expert. Mera finance company ke saath dispute hua hai, Company ka allegation hai ki maine two mobile phones alag-alag name se alag-alag place se finance karwaye hai, FIR se pehale company ke kuch employee mere office mai aaye aur mujhse meri hand-writting and jinke document se mobile phone finance hua hai unke name 8-10 papers par forcefully likhwaya jiseki maine koi complaint kisi bhi police station mai nhi di thi, Court mai meri hand-writting li gayee ab case ki chargesheet dakhil ho chuki hai jiseme maine dekha ki wahi meri hand-writting joki company employee ne forcefully lee thi police ne forensic ke liye bheji hui hai aur forensic ki report pending hai, Main ye janna chahta hu forensic report positive aane par mujhe koi pareshani ho sakti hai agar ho sakti hai to mujhe kya karna chahiye I was working in a private bank in 1994-95 in their Head office credit department. The High Court pointed out that even though the executive magistrate before whom the specimen signatures were given did not have the authority to enquire into or try the case; however, PW-5 and PW-7 gave specimen signatures voluntarily during the course of investigation and differentiated the cases relied on by the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State of Himachal Pradesh preferred appeal before the High Court assailing the correctness of the decision of the trial court.
SUKH RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.
Savitri Devi- PW-8 deposed that she did not sign on any of the documents as she is illiterate and Smt. BANUMATHI New Delhi; July 25, 2016. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. However, you can also file for recovery under 452 CrPC but you should have claimed the money within 6 months. Should I move Mumbai high court for quashing the Charge sheet against me? The High Court can quash the FIR if no offence is made out against the accused. What is Forgery of record of court or of public register, etc? Supreme Court of India Division Bench DB - Two Judge Appeal Civil , 224 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jul 25, 2016 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
IPC 466, 467, 468, 469 Indian Penal Code
Till date no charge sheet has been filed nor any enquiry made. Some time in 2008 CBI issued me a notice asking me to appear before them as witness, and they did not give me enough time to travel. To substantiate the charges, in the trial court, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. You have received illegal gain from my client by issuing a forged and fabricated insurance policies no- …. Trial court held that in the absence of legal evidence that appellant and others have forged the loan documents, it cannot be concluded that the accused had entered into conspiracy of committing forgery and cheating etc. No such things happened in your case, therefore, the High Court cannot quash this proceeding. PW-8 has further stated that he has never applied for loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and never visited the bank for that purpose and has also not made any application for grant of loan.
New Delhi, the said cheque also dishonored due to funds insufficient. Present batch of appeals arise out of three separate judgments of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeals No. As you had knowingly issued the cheque to my client. Section 468 Cheating: Section 415 IPC Punishment under Section 417: punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. If not, why should not make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings? Upon consideration of evidence adduced by prosecution, in our view, High Court righty reversed the judgment of acquittal. Check with local lawyer for further help. ICICI Lombard for new car and Policy details.
