Judgment 1. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (D.V.A.C), Nagercoil, is the appellant and aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2002 made in C.C.No.67 of 1994 under which both the accused were acquitted for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C., the present appeal is filed. Though the accused were convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 read with Section 465 and Section 420 (2 counts) I.P.C and were imposed with the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment, they have not preferred the appeal against the said conviction and hence, it became final. 2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: P.W.15 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, at the relevant point of time and he received the source information with regard to the irregularities taking place in the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, with regard to the issuance of Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate and Renewal of Licence, decided to conduct a surprise check and accordingly, required the services of P.W.14, who was employed as Supervisor in the services of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. 3. P.W.14 also acceded to the request and came to the office of P.W.15. P.W.15 with his police party and P.W.14 proceeded to the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and on seeing them, A.1 and one Baskaran @ Parameswaran who were carrying small recksin bags, tried to flee away and they were caught. The hand bags of the accused were searched. The hand bag of A.1 contained the driving licence of one Packiamani, Peer Mohammed, duplicate driving licence of Ambrose, Murugesan (not examined as a witness), Ponnulingam (P.W.1), Arul Ebenezer (P.W.2) and Suyambu (P.W.3) and also a sum of Rs.437/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Thirty Seven only). Since the accused failed to offer explanation as to the availability of the said documents, they were arrested and brought to the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and thereafter, they were enlarged on bail. 4. P.W.15, in this regard, registered an F.I.R under Ex.P.34 and prepared the proceedings under Ex.P.33 and also the mahazar under Ex.P.2. Since the accused failed to offer explanation as to the availability of the said documents, they were arrested and brought to the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and thereafter, they were enlarged on bail. 4. P.W.15, in this regard, registered an F.I.R under Ex.P.34 and prepared the proceedings under Ex.P.33 and also the mahazar under Ex.P.2. P.W.15, in the course of investigation had also seized the documents from the Regional Transport Office and also examined the officials of the Regional Transport Office and came to know that A.1 and A.2 and one P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.7 belonged to Tirunelveli District and that they fabricated the ration cards as if they are the residents of Kanyakumari District and produced the same at the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and got the Learners' Driving Licence. 5. P.W.15, after completion of investigation, has filed the final report and the same was taken cognizance by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and it framed the charges against the accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 474 read with 467, 420, 471 read with 467 and 420 I.P.C and questioned both the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. 6. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.34 and also marked M.O.1 and M.O.2. 7. Both the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them and they denied it. On behalf of the accused, one Sundaram was examined as D.W.1 and no exhibits were marked. 8. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the accused were not guilty for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C on the ground that the ration card cannot be termed as 'Valuable Security' and in respect of the commission of the other offences, the accused were found guilty and sentences were imposed with fine as stated above. 9. The State aggrieved by the order of acquittal in respect of the first and third charges namely, Sections 474 read with 467 I.P.C, has preferred this appeal. 10. Mr. 9. The State aggrieved by the order of acquittal in respect of the first and third charges namely, Sections 474 read with 467 I.P.C, has preferred this appeal. 10. Mr. P. Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that forgery of ration cards marked as Exs.P.14, P.17, P.20 and P.23 respectively, had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the finding of the trial Court that the ration cards are not 'Valuable Security' on the face of it, is unsustainable. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the ration cards are coming under the definition of Section 30 I.P.C and therefore, forgery of the said ration cards would definitely attract the commission of the offence and therefore, the acquittal for the said offence on the fact of it is unsustainable and hence, prayed for the reversal of the order of acquittal insofar as the said charges are concerned. 11. Per contra, the respective learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 would submit that the ration cards are not coming under the definition of 'Valuable Security' as defined under Section 30 I.P.C and therefore, the order of acquittal acquitting the accused for the commission of the said offences is sustainable and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. P.W.1 deposed that he has not given the ration card found in Ex.P.1 file to anybody. P.W.2 would depose that he, Murugesan and P.W.3 decided to take the driving licence and accordingly, approached A.2 and he asked them to bring four passport size photographs and also the Transfer Certificate evidencing their date of birth and also demanded a sum of Rs.1,200/- (Rupees One Thousand and Two Hundred only) each from them. P.W.2, P.W.3 and Murugesan agreed to the said demand and furnished passport size photographs and Transfer Certificates and the accused received the same and also noted down their addresses and asked them to come on 15.09.1992. The accused took them to Dr. Prem Kumar (P.W.10) and got the medical certificate and submitted the same to the Regional Transport Office and thereafter, they were issued with the driving licence. The accused took them to Dr. Prem Kumar (P.W.10) and got the medical certificate and submitted the same to the Regional Transport Office and thereafter, they were issued with the driving licence. It is categorically deposed by P.W.2 that he did not furnish any ration card as found in Ex.P.3 and he has not been issued with any family card at Nagercoil. In the cross-examination, nothing contra or useful elicited in favour of the accused. 14. P.W.3 deposed on the similar lines as that of P.W.2 and in the cross-examination, he has also deposed that the xerox copy as found in Ex.P.3 was not given by him and he never resided at Nagercoil at any point of time and he has not been issued with the ration card/family card at Nagercoil. In the cross-examination, he deposed that only at the time of furnishing the application for getting the driving licence, they saw the ration card and they did not read it and also not perused the records and they have not developed any suspicion. 15. P.W.4, Dr. Arunachalam, who has attested one of the ration cards, would admit that the name of Murugesan has been inserted in the ration card. P.W.5 who has been issued with the family card bearing No.D.682476, has spoken about the family card bearing No.D.682476 and deposed that it was issued in the name of his father-in-law (Kolappapillai) and it was surrendered and issued with new ration card bearing No.549502, wherein his father-in-law, mother-in-law, his wife, his daughter and his son have been included and the name of P.W.1 has not been included and he has no relative by name Ponnulingam (P.W.1). In serial No.4 of the names, in the place of his daughter, the name of P.W.1 has been inserted. 16. P.W.6 who was issued with the ration card, deposed that he was issued a ration card bearing No.D.549502 and it was surrendered and he was issued with new ration card bearing No.K.623513 and a perusal of the said card would disclose that in place of his son Robinson, the name of Arul Ebenezer (P.W.2) has been inserted and he has no relative in the name of Arul Ebenezer and he was not aware as to how the accused got the copy of the said card. 17. 17. P.W.7 who is the father of Murugesan, deposed that at any point of time, neither he or his son stayed at Kanyakumari District. 18. P.W.8 at the relevant point of time, was the Clerk in the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and has spoken about the ration cards and he would depose that in the xerox copies of those ration cards, attestation as to its genuinety has not been certified and on receipt of the application with enclosures, he has made entry in Ex.P.11 and has got the signature of the concerned person. In the cross-examination, he deposed that there was a difference in the writing in the ration cards and inspite of that, he was not aware as to how based on those documents, the driving licence came to be issued in favour of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and another. 19. P.W.9 at the relevant point of time was the Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr.I, and he has spoken about the issuance of the Learners' Driving Licence, Driving Licence and his attention was not drawn to the xerox copies of the ration cards. 20. P.W.10, who has issued the medical certificates to P.W.2 and P.W.3 and another, has admitted that while he attested Exs.P.17 and P.20, ration card/family card, he did not verify the same with the original since he was urgently leaving for hospital and that he believed that the accused will not cheat him. 21. P.W.11, who has been issued with Ex.P.8 family card, deposed that in the place of his daughter Pappa, the name of Murugesan has been inserted and he did not give Ex.P.8 ration card to anybody and he was not aware as to how the xerox copy of the said ration card has been taken. In the cross-examination, nothing useful or contra has been elicited in favour of the accused. 22. P.W.12, at the relevant point of time was the Taluk Supply Officer and he has given the report under Ex.P.32 with regard to the ration cards and when Ex.P.1 files, were shown to him, he deposed that the ration card bearing No.D.549502 was not issued by Kalkulam Taluk Office and in respect of the ration card given to Kolappapillai, the name of P.W.1 has not been included and nothing useful or contra was elicited in favour of the accused. 23. 23. P.W.13, has spoken about the lease of the premises for A.2 for carrying on his business. P.W.14, the independent witness has spoken about the search conducted by P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the documents. 24. P.W.15, has spoken about the investigation done by him and in the cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.P.2 the ration card was never issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the seal or signature of A.2 has not been found in Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.9. 25. P.W.16, has spoken about the ration card, Ex.P.17, he has deposed that there is no relative in the name of Suyambu (P.W.3) and he does not know as to how he got inserted in the ration card. 26. D.W.1 is the father-in-law and he would depose that he was employed in the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and he had difference of opinion with P.W.15, the Investigating Officer and because of that only, his son has been falsely implicated in this case. 27. The questions that arose for consideration are: (i) Whether the ration cards (Exs.P.14, P.17, P.20 and P.23) can be termed as 'Valuable Security' as per Section 30 I.P.C? (ii) Whether the order of acquittal acquitting the accused for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 and Section 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. is liable to be reversed? Question Nos.(i) and (ii): 28. In Daniel Hailey Walcott etc., In re, reported in (1968) 1 M.L.J. 229, the document namely passport is a 'Valuable Security' or not, came up for consideration and it has been held that the passport is a very valuable document in the sense that it establishes the identity of a person who holds it and it is a valuable piece of evidence to protect himself from any prosecution and it is also a document prima facie evidencing that the holder of the concerned passport is a resident of the country which issued the passport in his favour and hence creates a legal right as mentioned under Section 30 I.P.C and hence, a valuable security. 29. 29. 'Document' and 'Valuable Security' are defined in Sections 29 and 30 I.P.C respectively in Ishwarlal v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 40, the question arose for consideration was, whether the Income Tax Assessment order is a property and is a valuable security and it has been held as follows: "12. “Movable property” is defined, in Section 22 IPC; “Document” and “valuable security” are defined in Sections 29 and 30 IPC, respectively. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, it is clear that the assessment order determines the total income of the assessee, and the tax payable, on the basis of such assessment. The assessment order has to be served, on the assessee. The tax is demanded, by the issue of a notice, under Section 29; but the tax demanded, is on the basis of the assessment order, communicated to an assessee. The communicated order of assessment, received by an assessee, is in our opinion, “property”, since it is of great importance, to an assessee, as containing a computation, of his total assessable income and, as a determination, of his tax liability. In our view, the word “property”, occurring in Section 420 IPC, does not necessarily mean that the thing, of which a delivery is dishonestly desired by the person who cheats, must have a money value or a market value, in the hand of the person cheated. Even if the thing has no money value, in the hand of the person cheated, but becomes a thing of value, in the hand of the person, who may get possession of it, as a result of the cheating practised by him, it would still fall within the connotation of the term ‘property', in Section 420 IPC. 13. Once the assessment order is held to be “property”, the question arises as to whether there is a “delivery”, of the same, to the assessee, by the Income Tax Officer. It is argued that the order is communicated, in the usual course, and that irrespective of any ‘cheating', the officer is bound to serve the assessment order. This argument, though attractive, has no merit. Communication, or service of an assessment order, is part of the procedure of the assessment itself. But it can be held that, if the necessary allegations are established, the accused have dishonestly induced the Income Tax Officer, to deliver the particular property viz. This argument, though attractive, has no merit. Communication, or service of an assessment order, is part of the procedure of the assessment itself. But it can be held that, if the necessary allegations are established, the accused have dishonestly induced the Income Tax Officer, to deliver the particular property viz. the assessment order, as passed by him, in and by which a considerably low amount has been determined, as the total income of the assessee, on the basis of which the amount of tax, has been fixed. Nor are we impressed with the contention, that the deception, if at all, is practised, not when the assessment order is delivered, but at the stage, when the computation, of the total income, is made, by the Income Tax Officer. The process of “cheating”, employed by an assessee, if successful, would have the result of dishonestly inducing the Income Tax Officer to make a wrong assessment order and communicate the same to an assessee. 14. An offence under Section 420, IPC, will also be made out, if it is established that the accused have cheated and, thereby, dishonestly induced the Income Tax Officer to make a “valuable security”. This takes us to the question: “Is the assessment order ‘valuable security'?” We have already referred to Section 30 IPC, defining, ‘valuable security'. The assessment order is certainly a “document”, under Section 29 IPC. The order of assessment does create a right, in the assessee, in the sense that he has a right to pay tax only on the total amount assessed therein and his liability to pay tax is also restricted to that extent. Therefore an “order of assessment” is a “valuable security”, under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, if the cheating, employed by the accused, resulted in inducing the Income Tax Officer to make a wrong assessment order, it would amount to inducing the Income Tax Officer, to make a “valuable security”." 30. In Shaikh Noor Mohamad v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 297, the question arose for consideration was whether the certificates which were forged to get admission in a college could be termed as a 'Valuable Security' and the Honourable Supreme Court held that it cannot be described as a 'Valuable Security' and altered the conviction from Sections 471 read with 467 into one under Sections 471 read with 465 I.P.C and imposed the sentence accordingly. 31. 31. Similar view was taken in the decision in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 551. 32. A careful perusal and analysis of the testimonies of the above said witnesses would clearly disclose that the names of the witnesses namely P.W.2, P.W.3 and Murugesan have been inserted in the xerox copies of ration cards viz., Exs.P.14, P.17, P.20 and P.23 respectively and the concerned persons in whose favour the ration cards were issued had categorically deposed that none of the above cited witnesses are the family members and they did not know as to how their names got inserted in the place of one of their family members. Even though those witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused, nothing useful or contra was elicited in their favour and therefore, the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the fabrication and forgery have been done in respect of those ration cards and the xerox copies of the same were used to get the Learners' Driving Licence, Driving Licence in favour of the above said witnesses. 33. The trial Court also found that A.1 and A.2 had submitted the xerox copies of Exs.P.14, P.17, P.20 and P.23 respectively to the Regional Transport Office, however, had chosen to acquit the accused for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C on the ground that the ration card cannot be termed as a 'Valuable Security'. However, it convicted the accused in respect of the other charges and imposed the sentence of imprisonment and fine as stated above and the said conviction and sentence has not been challenged by the accused. 34. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, prior to the issuance of Voters' Identity Card, the ration cards were used for identification purpose and address proof, apart from its primary use to get the essential articles/commodities under concessional rates. In fact, the ration cards were also pledged by the card holders and the loan amounts were obtained by them. 35. In fact, the ration cards were also pledged by the card holders and the loan amounts were obtained by them. 35. A Single Bench of this Court in Daniel Hailey Walcott etc., In re, reported in (1968) 1 M.L.J. 229 (cited supra), has elaborately considered the scope of Section 30 and also relied upon 'Roscoe Pound Jurisprudence' -Volume IV, Chapter 21, page 70 and culled out the following principles: "(1) Legal right in its strict sense is one which is an assertable claim, enforceable before Courts and administrative agencies; (2) In its wider sense, a legal right has to be understood as any advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law; (3) There are legal rights, which are not enforceable, though recognised by the law; (4) There are rights recognised by the International Court, granted by international law; but not enforceable; and (5) A legal right is a capacity of asserting a secured interest rather than a claim that could be asserted in the Courts." and it has been further held in the said decision that a legal right is one either enforceable or recognised. 36. In the light of the principles deduced in the above said decision, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ration card is a 'Valuable Security' as it enables the holder of ration card certain privileges of getting the essential articles/commodities under concessional rates and it is also one of the documents recognised by the statutory authorities for identity and address proof and thus, it is conferring the advantage/benefit on the holders of ration cards. 37. The trial Court itself recorded the finding that A.1 and A.2 only submitted Exs.P.14, P.17, P.20 and P.23 along with the other documents and got the Learners' Driving Licence for P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Murugesan. 38. Since this Court is of the view that the ration card is a 'Valuable Security', the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C is liable to be set aside. 39. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order of the trial Court in acquitting the accused for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C, is set aside and they are convicted for the commission of the said offences also. 40. 39. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order of the trial Court in acquitting the accused for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C, is set aside and they are convicted for the commission of the said offences also. 40. Since the accused are to be questioned for imposition of punishment, they are directed to be present before this Court on 28.04.2011 questioning them and awarding the punishment.