JUDGMENT & ORDER : B.N. Karia, J. The appellant-original accused no.1 has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ["CrPC" for brevity] against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Camp-Modasa, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2000. The said case was registered against the present appellant and four other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 366, 509, 504, 506 (2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.12.1998 at about 7.00 p.m., the present appellant-original accused no.1 and four other persons forcibly abducted the victim Gauriben Babubhai Patel in a jeep car and she was taken to Village Dakore, and thereafter, she was taken to Anand. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were threatening the victim not to cry for help. After reaching Anand, present appellant took the signature of the victim on four to five blank papers and on some printed papers. Thereafter, all other accused persons left Anand, while present appellant took the victim to Bombay on 3.12.1998 and stayed in a guest house. In Bombay, the victim contacted her sister and then she was brought to Ahmedabad. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, when the complainant was present in her house at 7:00 o'clock in the evening on 02/12/1998 and my brother Rakesh, aged about 25 years, was also present there, their mother and father went to take medicine. At that time the respondent no.1 came to their house called the complainant outside. He kept his vehicle jeep parked at 200 feet away. Other persons gagged her mouth forcefully against her will and consent, and the respondent no.1 hold her and made her sit in the jeep forcefully and taken her at Dakor. As they did not find safety over there, they reached at Anand with jeep at about 11:00 o'clock. Meanwhile, complainant was shouting in the jeep but her cry could not go out as the jeep was running at very high speed, and as the respondent had kidnapped her, the complainant was scarred and as the respondent no.1 shown her weapon and threatened to kill. She lost her consciousness and sat quietly in the train as per the say of the respondent no.1. 4. She lost her consciousness and sat quietly in the train as per the say of the respondent no.1. 4. It is further version of the complainant that she got down at Bombay Central on 03/12/1998 and as she was totally confused and helpless as to where to go, when the respondent no.1 had gone to the toilet in the train, she had informed her sister, who was residing at Borivali by telephone and came back at the place where she stood. On arrival of the respondent, he took her with him on Grant Road, as per his will and sat in the hotel over there. The brother-in-law Ketankumar of the complainant came there and he was already informed through telephone from Ambaliyara that the respondent has abducted the applicant and therefore, he took the complainant with him at the home. Respondents no.2, 3 and 4 had gone away by leaving us on the railway station at Anand. Signatures of complainant were obtained forcefully in three to four printed forms as well as on blank papers when she was taken away forcefully by the respondents in the jeep, which the complainant apprehends that the respondent might misuse. 5. As per the prosecution case, all the respondents had in collusion with each other, kidnapped the complainantGauriben against her will and consent and made her sit in the jeep by gagging her mouth and by obtaining her signatures on different papers and by abducting and taking her at various places and thereby have committed grievous kind of sessions triable offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 509, 506(2), 468, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Thereafter, the present appellant submitted a form for marriage registration before District Registrar, Ahmedabad on 30.11.1998 allegedly bearing signature of the complainant Page victim. However, as per the case of the prosecution, it was not signed by the victim and the victim has not married with the present appellant. On 1.4.1999, the victim sent a typed complaint to Ambaliyaar Police Station against all the accused persons. 3. The charge was framed against the accused for the above referred offence and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. On 1.4.1999, the victim sent a typed complaint to Ambaliyaar Police Station against all the accused persons. 3. The charge was framed against the accused for the above referred offence and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. After completion of trial, the learned Judge acquitted four other accused from all the offences, while present appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 29.8.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Camp Modasa, in Sessions Case No.8 of 2000, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P Satta appearing for the appellant and learned APP Shri Rutvij Oza appearing for the respondent-State. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant is prima facie illegal, erroneous and improper. It is submitted that the registration of marriage certificate Exh. 12 produced on record can never be said to be fraudulently and dishonestly used by the appellant. That, in fact, the said marriage registration application form was signed by the complainant-Gauriben whereunder though she had signed, but denied the signature. However, no handwriting expert's opinion was sought for by the prosecution. That, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the respondent which was denied by the complainant saying that there was no signature on the marriage registration form/application, which was completely a wrong conclusion, without taking specimen signature or handwriting of the complainant by the trial court. That, the trial court has failed to consider that the marriage of the complainant was performed on 12th October 1998 and the bridegroom had signed on the marriage registration application on 26th November 1998 which was submitted before the District Registrar of Marriages, Ahmedabad on 30th November 1998 and whereas, the alleged offence was allegedly committed on 2nd December 1998. That, provisions under Sections 464 and 471 IPC were never proved by the prosecution to involve the appellant in the offence alleged. That, no eye witness was examined by the prosecution. That, Mr. That, provisions under Sections 464 and 471 IPC were never proved by the prosecution to involve the appellant in the offence alleged. That, no eye witness was examined by the prosecution. That, Mr. R.B Rohida has filled up the marriage registration form/application and submitted it before the Office of the Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad. That, after passing of four months of the alleged offence, a complaint was lodged without explanation for delay in lodgement of the complaint. That, no one can say that Exh. 12 marriage registration application was dishonestly or fraudulently prepared by the present appellant, in absence of any cogent evidence. Hence, it was ultimately requested by learned advocate Shri Satta appearing for the appellant to quash and set-aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 29th August 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Sabarkantha [Camp Modasa] in Sessions case No. 8 of 2000 and thereby acquit the appellant from the charges leveled against him. 8. Per contra, learned APP Shri Rutvij Oza appearing for the respondent-State strongly supported the findings and reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the present appellant for the offence, urging that the accused had dishonestly made and executed a document Exh. 12 with an intention of causing to believe that this document or part of the document was prepared by the complainant knowing that it was not made or signed or executed by her. He has further submitted that the said document which was fraudulently executed by him was used as a genuine one knowingly or had a reason to believe to be a forged document by producing it with the office of Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad. That marriage; as alleged by the appellant with the complainant-Gauriben was clearly denied by her in her deposition before the trial court. That, in her complaint, she has clearly stated that in some blank forms/papers her signature was obtained forcibly by the accused persons. That, the prosecution witnesses viz., Raghuvansh Prasad Rambhavan Trivedi [Exh 21] has clearly stated that in Mahalaxmi Temple, no permission for any marriage is being granted. That, marriage of the appellant with the complainant was never solemnized at any point of time in the temple. Another witness Shantibhai Kalidas from the prosecution side was not challenged by the accused before the trial court. The marriage application form Exh. That, marriage of the appellant with the complainant was never solemnized at any point of time in the temple. Another witness Shantibhai Kalidas from the prosecution side was not challenged by the accused before the trial court. The marriage application form Exh. 12 was produced before the trial court from the custody of the appellant, and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the present appellant in an offence punishable under Section 465 and 471 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the arguments and urged this Court not to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court and thereby to dismiss the present Appeal with cost. 9. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocate Shri Satta for the appellant and learned APP Shri Rutvij Oza, it appears that a complaint was registered against the present appellant and four other accused persons for an offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 366, 509, 504, 506 [2] read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and whereas, the accused nos. 2 to 5 came to be acquitted by the trial court from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 366, 509, 504, 506 [2] and 114 IPC. Indisputably, the marriage registration application Exh. 12 was produced from the custody of the present accused before the trial court; as observed. Therefore, it would be necessary to go into the facts of the said marriage application form by this Court minutely. It appears from the documents produced on record that the date of marriage was shown as 12th October 1998 at Mahalaxmi Temple, Opp. Victoria Garden, Laldarwaja, Ahmedabad. Name of the husband is shown as Vishnubhai Bhikhabhai Patel, resident of village Ambliyara, Modi Chowk, Taluka-Bayad of District Sabarkantha. His signature was also shown to be marked on 26th November 1998. Name of the bride is shown as Gauriben Babubhai Patel, who is complainant of this offence. Further, it appears that name of Priest who performed the alleged marriage is shown as Suryakant Bhikhabhai Shukla, resident of Chandralok Society, Ranip Gam, Ranip, Ahmedabad and under his signature, the date prescribed is 26th November 1998. The prosecution had examined one Shantilal Kalidas at Exh. 11. He was serving as a Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad. As per his oral evidence, he brought the original record of documents [Exh. The prosecution had examined one Shantilal Kalidas at Exh. 11. He was serving as a Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad. As per his oral evidence, he brought the original record of documents [Exh. 12] wherein name of girl is shown as "Gauriben" in the application form for registration of marriage. From the cross examination, it was found that the application for marriage registration is not produced by the concerned party and could be produced by any other party, then a receipt would be issued by the Office showing the name of the party who has produced the form. As per his further evidence, this form for registration of marriage was produced by one R.B Rohida in his office. He also produced the form for registration of marriage on the record. From the deposition of this witness, it is admitted that application for marriage registration was produced before the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Ahmedabad showing the name of Gauriben as bride [as produced at Exh. 12. The said application form was not produced by the present appellant or by the complainant-Gauriben Babubhai Patel before the officer. In fact, it was produced by one R.B Rohida. If we look at the oral deposition of the complainant given before the trial court the complainant has clearly denied in para 2 of her examination in chief about her marking signature on any application form for registration of marriage. She has stated further in her deposition that, the accused no.1, who is the appellant has forcibly made her to sign on certain documents. While showing document Exh.12, she has completely denied her signature. She has also denied in her cross-examination about any love affair with the accused or she having ever made any request for marriage. She has also denied of ever having visited Victoria garden at Ahmedabad, or of her marriage having been solemnized in Mahalaxmi temple near Victoria garden at Ahmedabad on 12th October,1998. She has denied the alleged marriage with the accused at any point of time as well as of her sending Diwali card or handwriting under his signature or any handwriting. It is not admitted that she had ever signed the marriage application form for its registration (Exh.12). PW 6-Ragahuvansh prasad Rambhavan Trivedi (Exh.21), in his deposition has stated that he was serving as a Clerk in the Mahalaxmi temple, opposite Victoria garden Lal Dharvaja Ahmedabad. It is not admitted that she had ever signed the marriage application form for its registration (Exh.12). PW 6-Ragahuvansh prasad Rambhavan Trivedi (Exh.21), in his deposition has stated that he was serving as a Clerk in the Mahalaxmi temple, opposite Victoria garden Lal Dharvaja Ahmedabad. He has denied that, any Bhramin named Suryakant bhai was staying in the temple. As per his deposition, marriage ceremony in the temple is not permitted. He denied of marriage of the accused named Vishubhai Bhikabhai Patel with the complainant at any point of time in the Mahalaxmi temple. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, any marriage ceremony was ever permitted in the temple or any bhramin was permitted to perform marriage ceremony in the temple, and therefore, the story of marriage having been performed by the priest namely Suryakantbhai Bikhabhai Shukla as shown in the document Exh. 12, falsifies the marriage ceremony, the place of marriage shown in the document at Exh. 12 to be having performed at Mahalaxmi temple opposite Victoria garden, Ahmedabad on 12th October,1998: as stated by the accused. This document Exh.12, i.e application for registration of marriage was not produced by the accused, but in fact it was produced by one Shri R.D Rohida. The accused has not presented the said form for registration of marriage before the Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad. Signature of the complainant is refused by her in the document Exh.12. This document was produced on record by the accused before the trial court, therefore, it can be safely concluded that this document was created falsely by the present appellant with an intention of causing it to be believed that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed by a person complainant knowing that it was not made, signed or executed. As per Explanation 1 of Section 464 of IPC mere signature on his own name amount to forgery. Here, application Exh.12 is the document for registration of marriage showing signature of the accused, signature of the complainant made by someone else, which was produced through one Rohida by the accused before the office of Registrar of Marriages Ahmedabad. As per Explanation 1 of Section 464 of IPC mere signature on his own name amount to forgery. Here, application Exh.12 is the document for registration of marriage showing signature of the accused, signature of the complainant made by someone else, which was produced through one Rohida by the accused before the office of Registrar of Marriages Ahmedabad. Signature of the accused proves his involvement in an offence of forgery as per explanation 1 of section 464 IPC, as it was a false document drawn in the name of the complainant with an intention to believe that the said document was made by a real person. The term "use" in Section 471 IPC is not restricted to the filing of the forged document as evidence in the court. It is sufficient that its use in order that it may ultimately appear in evidence or used dishonestly or produced. This document was produced before the Office of the Registrar of Marriages at Ahmedabad by the accused. What is relevant under Section 471 IPC is "use" which the forged document is put by the offender and whether the party to whom the document is presented expects or treats that document as genuine. 10. From the evidence available on the record, the trial court has correctly given its reasoning and sentenced the accused, and therefore, this court is of the opinion that no error is committed or any irregularity has been committed in the conduct of the trial of the present appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 471 of the IPC. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order impugned. Hence, the present appeal fails and the said is dismissed accordingly. Rule nisi discharged. 11. Appellant accused shall surrender before the trial court within a period of one week from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. Bail bond; if any, stands cancelled.