In re Gopalkrishan Heggade, 1910 Volume 11 The Criminal Law Journal Reports 401.

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by Sham Sunder, hereinafter described as the "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, dated 3.2.1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court held that prima facie a case punishable under Sections 466/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is drawn against the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had framed the charges with respect to the aforesaid offences to which the petitioner has pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

Some of the relevant facts for disposal of the present revision petition are that the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dasuya, had given an information on the basis of First Information. Report had been recorded. It pertained to the fact that a civil suit titled Sham Sunder v. Gram Panchayat of Village Lodhi Chak had been filed for permanent injunction. The petitioner was the plaintiff. He prayed for an interim injunction to restrain the respondents to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. A complaint was filed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. He stated that the land in question was on lease with the petitioner. The petitioner did not make the payment of the amount. A notice was issued to him for depositing the amount. In the suit filed by the petitioner, no ad interim injunction had been granted. The petitioner was alleged to have produced a photocopy of an order to show that the defendants in that suit were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land. The said copy was shown to Shri Krishan Lal counsel for the respondent. The said counsel had stated that it appears to be a forged document. The judicial file also indicated that no such ad interim injunction had been granted. After investigation, report had been submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereupon after compliance of other procedural aspects impugned order had been passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

The main argument to assail the impugned order on behalf of petitioner was that the document purported to have been produced was photocopy and not the original. According to him, in the absence of the original order, it cannot be held that there was any false document prepared by the petitioner. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the decision of Madras High Court In re Gopalkrishan Heggade, 1910 Volume 11 The Criminal Law Journal Reports 401, wherein it has been held that the exhibited document was merely a copy of the alleged false document and thus it will not be a false document and, therefore, conviction was set aside.

To appreciate the said contention reference can be made to Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which defines forgery. It reads as under :

"463. Forgery : Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that it refers to making any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person. Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code explains as to what is meant by making a false document. It reads as under :

"464. Making a false document : A person is said to make a false document

Firstly Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of alteration.

A perusal of the aforesaid section clearly reveals that if a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of a document was signed by the authority of a person by whom he knows that it was not signed, it was making of a false document. The other ingredients need not be reproduced. It is true that the original document which was stated to be a false document was not produced. Here the prosecution case itself is that the petitioner prepared/produced the photocopy as a false document. If the petitioner had prepared the said document and used it then it would be a false document within the ambit and purview of section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The said contention, therefore, so raised must fail.

Confronted with this position, it has been urged that even prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner. There is rivalry in the village as a result of which the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

Ordinarily, an order of framing a charge would only be quashed if, prima facie, no case is drawn. Herein, the material evidence on record does not permit the Court to come to such a conclusion. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.