Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 250 (MAD)

State, by Public Prosecutor v. Sanghvi Sugraj

1985-05-15

T.N.SINGARAVELU

body1985
Judgment This is an Appeal against acquittal preferred by the State represented by its Public Prosecutor in C.C.No. 2444/80 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. 2. The Central Crime Branch, Madras, charge sheeted the two respondents herein for offences under section 465, 468, 471 read with sections 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the charges was that the respondents on or about 31st July, 1978 forged a document seeking to register a firm (Sanghvi Metals) and dishonestly used the same as genuine. The respondents, by forging the signatures of the other partners, cheated the Registrar of Firms, Madras by dishonestly inducing him to register the firm and issue a certificate and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The two respondents (Accused) and P.Ws.1 and2 entered into a partnership deed on 19th July, 1975 under Ex.P-1 under which the four persons constituted themselves as partners and started a business under the name and style of ‘Sanghvi Metals’, Mint Street, Madras with effect from 2nd May, 1975. The minimum duration of the partnership was three years. The partnership deed was not registered. The prosecution case is that after the period of three years, i.e., on 31st July, 1978 the two accused presented a petition before the Registrar of Firms (P.W.4) with the signatures of four partners for the purpose of Registration, while in fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 (the other two partners) did not sign the application and that the two accused have forged the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the form and presented for registration and obtained the Registration Certificate. On coming to know of this, P.W.1 laid a complaint Ex.P-3 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Crime), Madras on 25th August, 1978 complaining of forgery and cheating in respect of the registration of the firm. The police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. Nine witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the partners and they have stated that they did not sign (sic) Ex.P-2, i.e., the Form of Registration and that the signatures found therein are forged. P.W.3 is an Advocate practising in this Court who is purported to have attested the signatures of four persons in the concerned form. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the partners and they have stated that they did not sign (sic) Ex.P-2, i.e., the Form of Registration and that the signatures found therein are forged. P.W.3 is an Advocate practising in this Court who is purported to have attested the signatures of four persons in the concerned form. He has stated that an Advocate’s clerk came to him with four persons and requested him to attest their signatures in Ex.P-2. P.W.3 who appears to be a young Advocate says that he believed the Advocate’s clerk and asked him to get the signatures of the four persons in Ex.P-2. When the Advocate’s clerk brought to him all the four signatures, P.W.3 attested the same on 11th July, 1978. According to him he attested the form only on 11th July, 1978, but now this date has been altered and ante-dated. P.W.3 says that he did not know these four persons and that he attested the form on the representation of the Vakil’s Clerk. P.Ws.4 and 5 are formal witnesses who were examined to prove the issue of the Registration Certificate. P.W.6 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, who registered the complaint, Ex.P-3 under various offences. He examined the complainants P.Ws.1 and 2 and further investigation was taken up by the Deputy Inspector (P.W.8). 5. P.W.7 is the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Coimbatore and a. Documents Expert. The disputed signatures were referred to P.W.7 for examination by the Deputy Commissioner of Police with a requisition. P.W.7 marked the specimen writings of 1st accused and 2nd accused, namely, Ex.P-7 series. The expert also received the admitted writings of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He says, he carefully compared the documents and stated that the persons who wrote the admitted writings, section 85 to section 127 did not write the signatures in the disputed document. He has given his reasons for the same with his opinion under Ex.P-13. P.W.8 is the Deputy Inspector of Crimes who took up further investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused on 10th March, 1980. 6. The two accused denied the offences and examined one person as D.W.1. He would state that he knows all the parties and that he went with all the four parties to the Advocate P.W.3 who attested the document in his presence. 7. 6. The two accused denied the offences and examined one person as D.W.1. He would state that he knows all the parties and that he went with all the four parties to the Advocate P.W.3 who attested the document in his presence. 7. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the accused. The State is aggrieved by the order of acquittal and has preferred this Appeal. 8. It is common ground that P.W.1 Sohanraj and his brother Madhanraj (P.W.2) were partners in a firm called Sanghvi Metals at Madras along with the two accused Sugraj and Champalal. Admittedly, they entered into a partnership agreement under Ex.P-1 on 19th July, 1975 and the terms of partnership were reduced to writing. The minimum duration of the partnership was three years and the partnership came into effect from 2nd May, 1975. However, the four partners did not have the partnership deed registered with the Registrar of Firms though they were carrying on business. In or about 1977 or 1978 disputes arose among the partners in respect of the partnership accounts regarding collection of outstandings. While so, Sugraj (1st accused) approached the police with a complaint on 27th July, 1978 accusing P.W.1 and P.W.2 of having committed offences under sections 406 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. This was registered by the Police on 29th Duly, 1978 and P.Ws.1 and 2 were arrested. Later, on 31st July, 1978 the local Sessions Judge ordered them to be released on bail. Thus far, there is no dispute. No further action was taken by the Police on the complaint given by the 1st accused. The two accused who were not sure of their allegations in the criminal complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 filed a civil suit for collection of the outstandings against the brother of P.W.2. Since the firm was not registered with the Registrar of Firms, the accused wanted to register the firm to prosecute the suit. Therefore, the prosecution case (‘sic’) is that for that purpose the accused forged and presented an application to the Registrar of Firms by writing the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 on 31st July, 1978. Since the firm was not registered with the Registrar of Firms, the accused wanted to register the firm to prosecute the suit. Therefore, the prosecution case (‘sic’) is that for that purpose the accused forged and presented an application to the Registrar of Firms by writing the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 on 31st July, 1978. Thus, according to the prosecution, accused 1 and 2 dishonestly and fraudulently induced the Registrar of Firms to register the firm ‘Sanghvi Metals’ and got a certificate for such partnership on 31st July, 1978. It is also noticed that the accused had already filed a civil suit against P.Ws.1 and 2 to recover a sum of money, and for that purpose also they required the registration of the firm. Thus the charges against the accused were under sections 465, 468, 471 read with sections 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The evidence in support of the charges is as follows: P.Ws.1 and 2 who were the two of the four partners of Sanghvi Metals had given evidence that they never signed the application form Ex.P-2 presented before the Registrar of Firms on 31st July, 1978. They have also sworn that the signatures found in Ex.P-2 are forged and that they never signed the same. As stated already, the two accused have already laid a criminal complaint with the Police against P.Ws.1 and 2 on 27th July, 1978 which was registered on 29th July, 1978 and P.Ws.1 and 2 were admittedly arrested by the Police, perhaps without enquiry or preliminary investigation. It is common ground that P.Ws.1 and 2 were in custody on 29th, 30th, and 31st July, 1978. It is during this crucial period accused 1 and 2 had presented the application Ex.P-2 before the Registrar of Firms with the purported signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2. Obviously, disputes had arisen among the partners much earlier and the suit against P.Ws.1 and 2 was also filed in July, 1978. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have and could not have signed Ex.P-2 which was presented on 31st July, 1978. Thus, we have the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that their disputed signatures in Ex.P-2 are not theirs and that they have been written by the accused for an ulterior purpose. What is more, the accused managed to get the registration on the very same day and also received the Registration Certificate. Thus, we have the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that their disputed signatures in Ex.P-2 are not theirs and that they have been written by the accused for an ulterior purpose. What is more, the accused managed to get the registration on the very same day and also received the Registration Certificate. This is borne out from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. 10. The next piece of evidence connecting the accused with the offence is furnished by P.W.7, the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Coimbatore. P.W.7 is a Document Expert and he has put in 14 years of experience in that line. On requisition P.W.7 compared certain documents, Exts.P-2 and P-5 with the specimen writings and signatures of the parties. Ex.P-7 series are containing the specimen writings of the 1st accused and P.W.7 marked them as section 1 to section 43. Ex.P-8 contains the specimen writings of the 2nd accused, and they are marked as section 44 to section 84. Ex.P-9 series contain the admitted writings of P.W.1 marked as section 85 to section 127. As regards the disputed documents, Exts. P-2 and P-5, the Document Expert marked the signatures as Q-1 to Q-15. According to him, he carefully compared the documents and gave his opinion that the persons who wrote section 1 to section 43 also wrote the signature Q-1 to Q-8, Q-14 and Q-15. He also then stated that the person who wrote the writing section 44 to section 84 did not write the signature of Q-2 to Q-6. Similarly the person who wrote the writings section 85 to section 127 did not write the signature Q-4 and Q-8. The person who wrote signatures section 128 to section 154 also wrote the signatures marked as Q-13. According to him, the person who wrote section 155 to section 179 did not write the signature marked as Q-3 and Q-7. He has given his written opinion under Ex.P-13 countersigned by the Additional Director. 11. P.W.7 has also gone to the witness box and submitted himself to cross-examination. This witness has passed M.Sc. Degree in Forensic Science and in Examination of Documents. He says that he had studied the disputed signatures under magnifying lenses and compared the same with the disputed signatures. 11. P.W.7 has also gone to the witness box and submitted himself to cross-examination. This witness has passed M.Sc. Degree in Forensic Science and in Examination of Documents. He says that he had studied the disputed signatures under magnifying lenses and compared the same with the disputed signatures. According to him, there is lot of difference between the two sets with regard to the connection of letters, line quality, formation, loops, characters, letters, terminals, etc. Thus we have before us the evidence of the victims who have stated that they never signed the form Ex.P-2 as also the evidence of the Document Expert (P.W.7) and his written opinion. It is well-known that forgery cannot be proved by direct evidence, as it is specially within the knowledge of the culprits, and no forgerer worth the name would ever leave anything unturned in the course of the commission of crime. Therefore, whether a forgery has been committed or not, has to be gathered from the evidence of the victims, the handwriting expert and the strong circumstantial evidence leading to the guilt of the accused. In addition to the evidence already set out supra, we have the direct evidence of P.W.3 who is an Advocate at Madras and who has attested the signature of the parties in the application form Ex.P-2. P.W.3 is a young man and a Junior Advocate. According to him, an Advocate’s clerk came to him at 10-45 a.m., on 11th July, 1978 with four persons and told him that they are the partners of Sanghvi Metals and requested the Advocate to attest their signatures in Ex.P-2. Admittedly, P.W.3 was not acquainted with any of those four persons and they did not put their signatures in the presence of P.W.3. Since 10-45 a.m. was a busy hour, the young Advocate P.W.3 in order to oblige the Advocate’s clerk asked the latter to get the signatures of those persons and bring it to him for attestation. P.W.3 says that the Advocate’s clerk got the signature of four persons and produced before him (P.W.3) for attestation. It is important to note that the Advocate’s clerk Rajan was not the clerk of P.W.3 and he belongs to some other Office. Quite innocently, P.W.3 attested Ex.P-2 in all the four places. According to him, the clerk put the date before him below one of his signatures as 11.7.1978. It is important to note that the Advocate’s clerk Rajan was not the clerk of P.W.3 and he belongs to some other Office. Quite innocently, P.W.3 attested Ex.P-2 in all the four places. According to him, the clerk put the date before him below one of his signatures as 11.7.1978. P.W.3 says that he asked the clerk to fill up the other particulars and went away. The Advocate (P.W.3) has then stated that when the C.I.D. Police came to him for interrogation along with P.W.1, the witness told the police that he had never seen P.W.1 and that P.W.1 had not come to him when he attested Ex.P-2 on 11th July, 1978. P.W.3 stoutly denied the suggestion that he attested all the four signatures even on 11th July, 1977. On the other hand, he has stated that the attestation was only on 11th July, 1978 and he asked the Advocate’s clerk to put the date. Now, the year ‘78 has been altered into ‘77. This is apparent from the records. The letter ‘8’ in ‘77’ has been overwritten and altered though in the three other places, the year has been written as ‘1977’. The explanation is, the Junior Advocate directed the Advocate’s clerk to put the date in one place and then asked him to fill up the other particulars and went away. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the testimony of P.W.3 as he is a disinterested witness. 12. The probabilities are also heavily in favour of P.W.3’s evidence that his attestation was made only on 11th July, 1978. As already stated the partnership came into existence on 19th July, 1975, and the duration of the partnership was for a period of three years. Admittedly, the partnership deed was presented for registration only on 31st July, 1978, i.e., after the period of three years. It is very significant to note that the parties did not choose to have the partnership deed registered during the period of three years fixed in the partnership deed and they did not think it fit and necessary to do so. It is also important to note that disputes have arisen among the parties in 1977-78 and the accused, viz., two of the partners had given complaint to the police on 27th July, 1978 and had P.Ws.1 and 2 arrested by the Police. It is also important to note that disputes have arisen among the parties in 1977-78 and the accused, viz., two of the partners had given complaint to the police on 27th July, 1978 and had P.Ws.1 and 2 arrested by the Police. What is more, P.Ws.1 and 2 were on remand on 31st July, 1978. It is therefore clear that after the disputes had arisen between the parties and for the purpose of the suit in the Civil Courts, the respondents had manipulated or forged, the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 dishonestly and fraudulently taking advantage of the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 were on remand on the date of the presentation of the form for registration. This lends lot of support to the prosecution case when taken along with the fact that 11.7.1978 had been altered into 11.7.1977. If the signatures of the witness had been obtained on 11th July, 1977 in the Form Ex.P-2, one would normally expect the same to be presented before the Registrar of Firms at once. In other words, there is no rhyme or reason for the respondent two wait from 11th July, 1977 to 31st July, 1978. This again conclusively shows that the attestation of P.W.3 in the Form Ex.P-2 was only on 11th July, 1978 after serious disputes had arisen among the parties. All these factors clearly establish that the respondents forged the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 and made a false document and induced the Registrar of Firms to register the same. Thus, the offences under sections 468, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code have been established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The learned trial Magistrate has not understood the scope of the prosecution case and has merely picked holes in the evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution case is that the accused forged the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 in Ex.P-2 on 11th July, 1978 and got the firm registered on 31st July, 1978. The learned trial Magistrate has completely misunderstood the case of the prosecution and proceeded on a wrong assumption that the forgery itself was committed only on 31st July, 1978 when P.Ws.1 and 2 were on remand. The Advocate (P.W.3) has stated that the forgery was on 11th July, 1978 when the four persons are purported to have signed Ex.P-2. The learned trial Magistrate has completely misunderstood the case of the prosecution and proceeded on a wrong assumption that the forgery itself was committed only on 31st July, 1978 when P.Ws.1 and 2 were on remand. The Advocate (P.W.3) has stated that the forgery was on 11th July, 1978 when the four persons are purported to have signed Ex.P-2. It is nobody’s case that the forgery was committed on 31st July, 1978 or even on 11th July, 1977. Thus the lower Court has completely misread the evidence of the Advocate P.W.3 who had given categorical evidence that even in December, 1978 (when he was examined by the police) he identified that P.W.1 did not come to him on 11th July, 1978 to sign Ex.P-2. Again, the rejection of the evidence of the Expert (P.W.7) is wholly unwarranted. Of course, the evidence of the Document Expert (P.W.7) is not conclusive, and he is only assisting the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria so as to enable the Judge to form his in dependent judgment. The expert’s opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. In this case, there is not only the expert’s opinion, but also substantial corroboration by direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the trial Court committed a grave error in totally rejecting the evidence of the handwriting expert (P.W.7). 14. The trial Court found fault with the prosecution for not examining the Advocate’s clerk. This is, to say the least, asking for the impossible. The Advocate’s clerk appears to be the villain of the piece who has actively helped the accused and managed to get the attestation of a raw Junior Advocate by false representation. It is futile to expect the Advocate’s clerk to come and give evidence in support of the prosecution. In fact, the Inspector has stated that even at the time of investigation, the Advocate’s clerk had absconded and he was not available. The trial Court made much of the non-examination of the Advocate’s clerk who was in the position of an accomplice. The trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused on a flimsy ground that there is no direct evidence of forgery. The trial Court made much of the non-examination of the Advocate’s clerk who was in the position of an accomplice. The trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused on a flimsy ground that there is no direct evidence of forgery. The trial Court even went to the extent of pointing out that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not see the fabrication of their signatures and that they do not know who actually put the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 in Ex.P-2. Consequently, the trial Court erred in holding that there is no direct evidence for the forgery. I am satisfied that the acquittal of the accused is improper and is also contrary to the evidence on record. I fail to see what other evidence can we expect from the prosecution than the evidence of the victims, the handwriting expert and the circumstances clearly indicating guilt of the accused. The fact that the partnership deed was presented for registration after the expiry of the period of three years of the partnership positively shows that Ex.P-2 is a false document and that it was presented for registration after putting P.Ws.1 and 2 in jail in pursuance of a private complaint. The learned Magistrate has completely ignored the evidence on record and has not gone into it in depth. 15. To constitute the offence of forgery, the document must be false and it must have been made dishonestly as indicated under section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. It must also have been made with an intention to cause injury to any person. Thus, the offences are complete. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused did so with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was signed by the persons. Further, the two accused had fraudulently and dishonestly used the document as genuine which they knew to be forged document. Therefore, the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code has also been established. 15. Now, with reference to section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the two accused had fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Registrar of Firms to do a thing which he would not do if he was not so deceived. The essence of the charge is that there must be deception which may be by act or by conduct directly and indirectly depending upon the circumstances of each case. The essence of the charge is that there must be deception which may be by act or by conduct directly and indirectly depending upon the circumstances of each case. Thus, the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has also been made out in this case and the acquittal of the accused is, in my opinion, manifestly wrong and improper and requires interference in this appeal against acquittal. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondents/ accused drew my attention to the fact that the victim (P.W.1) himself has filed a revision petition against the order of acquittal and that the same was dismissed. Therefore, it was argued that the dismissal of the revision against the acquittal would be a bar to the appeal against the acquittal by the State. I have carefully considered this argument, but I am unable to agree with the same. The previous petition was a revision petition filed by the original complainant, whereas this is an appeal preferred by the State under a statutory right. It would appear that the State represented by the Public Prosecutor was not heard in the said revision and the revision petition was summarily dismissed holding that this Court cannot reappraise the entire evidence as if it is a Court of appeal. The present appeal is by the State in which the evidence can be looked into. One other point deserves mention. The same learned Judge who appears to have dismissed the revision petition in limine has granted special leave to the State for preferring this appeal. In any event, the merits of the case were not canvassed before the learned Judge in the revision against acquittal and therefore, I am of opinion that the previous petition by the private complainant will not operate as a bar for the appeal against the acquittal by the State. 17. The result is, the acquittal of the respondents is contrary to the evidence on record and is manifestly wrong. Therefore, this Court is constrained to interfere. The appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside and. the respondents are found guilty of the charges under sections 465, 468, 471, read with sections 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted thereunder. 18. Therefore, this Court is constrained to interfere. The appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside and. the respondents are found guilty of the charges under sections 465, 468, 471, read with sections 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted thereunder. 18. With reference to sentence, both the accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default to undergo R.I. for two months each, for the offence under section 471 read with section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Time for payment of fine four weeks from the date of receipt of order.