http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: BUDHU RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/1962

BENCH:

ACT: Forgery--Application    for   compensation   by    displaced person--Production of attested copy of forged verified claim before  Settlement  Officer--If  amounts to  use  of  forged document  as  genuine--Complaint by Settlement  Officer,  if required--Code  of Criminal Procedure 1898 (5  of 1898),  s. 195(1)(c)--Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 471- Displaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) Rules.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant, a displaced person, made an application  for compensation   before  the  Assistant   Settlement   Officer functioning  under the Displaced Persons  (Compensation  and Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954, and in support of  that  appli- cation  submitted  an attested copy of  his  verified  claim which on enquiry was found to be a fabricated document.  The appellant  was  convicted by the  Assistant  Sessions  judge under  s.  471 and s. 420 read with s. 5 II  of  the  Indian Penal  Code.   On appeal the Sessions  judge  confirmed  the sentence  of  imprisonment  but set  aside  the  fine.   The decision  of  the Sessions judge was affirmed  by  the  High Court in revision.  It was urged on behalf of the  appellant that the Assistant Settlement Officer was a court within the meaning  of s. 195(1) (c) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure and in the absence of a complaint by him the prosecution was incompetent  and  that  the production of the  copy  of  the verified  claim  was no offence under S. 471 of  the  Indian Penal Code committed. Held, that no complaint by the Assistant Settlement  Officer under  s. 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  could be  necessary, assuming that he was a court, since what  was produced before him was not the original forged document but a  copy  of  it.  It was clear from  the  language  of  that section  that  it  was only when  the  forged  document  was produced  in  court that that complaint by  that  court  was necessary. sanmukhsingh v. The King, (1949) L. R. 77 I. A. 7, applied. 377 Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code penalised the use of  a forged document as genuine.  Where, as in the present  case, an attested copy would serve the purpose, production of such a  copy would amount to use of the original forged  document as  genuine.   The difference between s. 471 of  the  Indian Penal  Code  and  s.  195(1)(c)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  was  that while the former did  not  require  the production  of  the forged document itself,  in  court,  the latter did so.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1960. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated August  19,  1960, of the Rajasthan High Court  in  Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959. Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant. S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the respondent 1962.  July 24.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.--This is an appeal by special leave against  the judgment  of the, Rajasthan High Court.  The appellant is  a displaced   person  from  West  Pakistan.   He  obtained   a registration  card  meant  for displaced  persons  from  the Rehabilitation  Department  in  July  1949.   In  1954,  the Displaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act, (No. 44 of 1954) was enacted.  Thereafter a notification was issued  by  the Central Government under the  Act  requiring displaced   persons   having   verified   claims   to   make applications  for  payment of compensation.   Thereupon  the appellant  made an application for compensation (Ex.  P-  2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar in Marc 1955,  as required  under the Act and the Rules  framed  thereunder.In support of that application, he submitted an attested   copy of his verified claim (Ex.  P-3).  It   appears   that   the Assistant Settlement 378 Officer  proposed  to allot 132 acres of  evacuee  allotable agricultural land to the appellant on quasipermanent  basis, and  asked the, Tehsildar Nagar to make a proposal  in  that connection  in  consultation  with the  appellant.   In  the meantime,  secret  information was received  that  displaced persons in that area had obtained allotment of land on false and  forged verified claims.  The matter was  then  inquired into  and it was found that the claim for compensation  made by  the appellant was based on a fabricated verified  claim. Consequently,  the appellant was prosecuted under  ss.  466, 471,  and 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code  and was committed for trial to the Court of Session, Alwar. It may be mentioned that the original of which Ex.  P-3 is a copy  submitted  along with the application (Ex.   P-2)  was never  produced  either  before  the  Assistant   Settlement Officer or in the Sessions Court.  The case was tried by the Assistant  Sessions Judge to whom it was  transferred.   The appellant’s defence there was that the application (Ex.   P- 2) had not been submitted by him and that he had nothing  to do with the said application or the enclosures  accompanying it.   He  also contended that as  the  Assistant  Settlement Officer,  was acting as a court and as the offence under  s. 471  was  alleged  to have been committed in  respect  of  a document produced or given in evidence in proceedings before the  Assistant  Settlement  Officer,  his  prosecution   was incompetent  in the absence of a complaint by the  Assistant Settlement  Officer.  The Assistant Sessions Judge  rejected the  contention of the appellant that any complaint  by  the Assistant Settlement Officer was necessary before cognizance could  be  taken of the offence under s. 471 of  the  Indian Penal  Code.   He further held on the evidence  led  by  the prosecution that the application 379 (Ex.  P-2) and the copy of the verified claim (Ex.  P-3) and other papers accompanying the application were got  prepared by  the appellant and got attested and verified by him.   He further held that though there was no direct proof of  the,,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

fact  that  the  application (Ex.  P-2) was put  in  by  the appellant in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar,  there could be no doubt in the circumstances of  the case  that  the  application  (Ex.   P-2)  along  with   its enclosures  could only have been put in by the appellant  or by  someone  on his behalf in the office  of  the  Assistant Settlement Officer.  He, therefore, convicted the  appellant under s. 471 as well asunder s. 420 read with S.  511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to  imprisonment as well as fine.  There was then an   appeal by the appellant to the Sessions  Judge, Alwar.  This appeal was dismissed with  the modification  that the sentence of fine was set aside.   The substantive  sentence of imprisonment, which was  two  years rigorous  imprisonment under s. 471 and one year’s  rigorous imprisonment  under  s. 420 read with s. 511 of  the  Indian Penal  Code, has been made to run concurrently by  both  the courts. The  appellant then went in revision to the High  Court  and the  main  point urged there was that  the  prosecution  was incompetent  in  view  of  s. 195 (1) (c)  of  the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure  in the absence of a  complaint  by  the Assistant   Settlement  Officer,  Alwar.   The  High   Court rejected this contention.  Further, the findings of the  two courts  below  were challenged on the merits; but  the  High Court  held that there was no reason to interfere  with  the concurrent  findings  of fact arrived at by the  two  courts below.  Finally, it was contended that as Ex.  P-3 was  only a  copy  there could be no offence under s.  471,  but  this contention  was  also rejected by the High  Court.   In  the result,  the  High  Court  confirmed  the  judgment  of  the Sessions 380 Judge.   There was then an application for a certificate  to appeal  to  this Court, which was rejected.   The  appellant then  came  to  this  Court for  special  leave,  which  was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the  points which  were urged in the High Court, before us.   His  first contention is that the Assistant Settlement Officer must  be deemed to be a court within the meaning of s. 195 (1) (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the prosecution was  incompetent  in  the  absence of  a  complaint  by  the Assistant Settlement Officer.  Further it is contended  that as Ex.  P-3 is only a copy there can be no offence under  s. 471  of the Indian Penal Code, even if it be  accepted  that the  application  (Ex.  P-2) along with its  enclosures  was filed  before  the  Assistant  Settlement  Officer  by   the appellant  or on his behalf.  Lastly, it is  contented  that there is no evidence to prove that the application (Ex.   P- 2) was made by the appellant or on his behalf. We do not think it necessary for the purposes of this appeal to  decide  whether the Assistant  Settlement  Officer  when acting  under  Act 44 of 1954 can be deemed to  be  a  court within the meaning of s. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal procedure.  We shall assume for present purposes that he  is a  court to which s. 195 (1) (c) applies.  But the  question still   remains  whether  a  complaint  by   the   Assistant Settlement  Officer was necessary where as in this  case  it was  not  the original forged document  which  was  produced before  him  but a. copy thereof his question  came  up  for consideration before the Judicial Committee in Sanmukh Singh v. The King (1), and it was he Id that s. 195 (1) (c) refers only to the document alleged to be forged and not to a  copy of it and therefore the absence of a complaint from a  court where copies of forged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

(1) [1949] L. R. 77 I. A. 7. 381 documents are produced is no bar to the trial for an offence of  forgery  or  using  a  forged  document.   The  Judicial Committee  observed that ,the section can only refer to  the document  alleged to be forged, not to a copy of  it.   This view,  which accords with the plain grammatical  meaning  of the words, is supported by the practical common sense of the matter,  for, as was observed in that court (Girdharilal  v. The  Emperor)  (1),  the  court before which  a  copy  of  a document is produced is not really in a position to  express any  opinion  on the genuineness of the  original.   It  was suggested  that a forged document might at least be said  to be given in evidence’ if a copy was produced, but it appears to  their  Lordships that, though by production  of  a  copy secondary  evidence of the contents of a document might  be said to be giver), the forged document itself would not thus be  given  in evidence".  We respectfully  agree  with  this view.               Section 195(1) (0) is in these terms-.-               "195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance--               (a)               (b)               (c) of any offence described in section 463 or               punishable  under section 471, section 475  or               section  476  of  the  same  Code,  when  such               offence is alleged to have been committed by a               party  to  any  proceeding  in  any  Court  in               respect  of  a document produced or  given  in               evidence  in  such proceeding, except  on  the               complaint in writing of such court, or of some               other  Court to which such Court  is  subordi-               nate." It will be seen on a plain grammatical construction of  this provision that a complaint by the court is (1)  A.I.R. (1925) Qudh 413. 382 required  where  the offence is of forging or  of  using  as genuine  any  document which is known or believed  to  be  a forged  document when such document is produced or given  in evidence  in court.  It is clear therefore that it  is  only when  the  forged  document  is produced  in  Court  that  a complaint  by the Court is required.  Where, however,  what is  produced  before the court is not  the  forged  document itself,  s.  195(1)(c)  will not apply on  its  terms.   The reason  for this, as stated by the Judicial  Committee,  "is the  practical  common sense of the matter,  for  the  court before which a copy of a document is produced is not  really in  a position to express any opinion on the genuineness  of the original".  Therefore, even if the Assistant  Settlement Officer  is assumed to be a court within the meaning  of  s. 195(1)(c)  no  complaint was necessary  because  the  forged document  itself  was  not  produced  before  the  Assistant Settlement Officer in this case but only a copy thereof. This  brings  us to the next question, namely,  whether  ail offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have  been  committed in the circumstances  of  the  present case.  In this connection we may briefly refer to the  facts found  by  the  Sessions Court, with respect  to  Ex.   P-3. These  facts are that the original of Ex.  P-3 was given  by the  appellant  to  Hotu  Ram,  a  petition-writer,  and  he prepared the copy Ex.  P-3.  This copy was then presented to Mahesh Gaur, an Oaths Commissioner, who compared it with the original and then attested it.  This attested copy was  then sent  as  an  enclosure  along  with  the  application   for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

compensation (Ex.  P-2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer. Further,  there is clear evidence that the original  of  Ex. P-3  must have been forged for no such document  was  issued from the Office of the Chief Settle-  383 ment  Commissioner, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Delhi.   Now s.471 is in these words:-               "Whoever  fraudulently or dishonestly uses  as               genuine  any  document which he knows  or  has               reason  to  believe to be a  forged  document,               shall be punished in the same manner as if  he               had forged such document." There  can be no doubt that the appellant used the  original of Ex.  P-3 which was a forged document when he got the copy of  it attested by the Oaths Commissioner.  Further when  he sent this copy along with his application (Ex.  P-2) to  the Assistant  Settlement  Officer, his intention was  that  the original  which  was  a forged document should  be  used  as genuine  through  the  production  of  a  copy  before   the Assistant  Settlement  Officer.  It appears that  under  the Rules  under the Act No. 44 of 1954 it- is not necessary  to send  the  original verified claim and it is  enough  if  an attested  copy is sent and that is what the  appellant  did. When  he  sent the attested copy of the original  which  was forged  he was clearly using the original  forged  document, for  by the production of the copy he was  giving  secondary evidence of the contents of a document which he knew or  had reason to believe to be forged.  What s.471 requires is  the use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be a forged document; it does not lay down that such use can only  occur  when the original itself is produced,  for  the section  does  not require the production of  the  original. Where, for example, under the Rules, an attested copy  would suffice  the  production of an attested copy  would  in  our opinion amount to use of the original document as genuine if it  is  known or is believed to be a forged  document.   The difference  between s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code  and  s. 195(1){c)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure is  that  while s.195  (c)  requires the production of the  forged  document itself in a court to make it necessary for 384 a  complaint to be filed before a person can  be  prosecuted for  forging or using such document as genuine, s. 471  does not require the production of the original forged  document. Where  it  is possible to produce an attested  copy  of  the forged  document  and  that attested  copy  will  serve  the purpose  of the original forged document there would in  our opinion  be use of the original forged document as  geunine, though  through  the attested copy.  We are,  therefore,  of opinion  that as an attested copy of a forged  document  was produced  in  this  case  before  the  Assistant  Settlement Officer. it must be held that there was use of the document, which  I was known or was believed to be a  forged  document within the meaning of s. 471. Lastly, it was urged that there was nothing to show that the appellant  knew that the document was forged and  also  that there  was no proof that the appellant was  responsible  for the production of Ex. P-3 as an enclosure to the application (Ex.   P-2)  before the Assistant Settlement  Officer.   The appellant’s  case, as we have already set out, was  that  he never  got  Ex.   P-2  prepared; nor did  he  get  Ex.   P-3 prepared  and  attested.  That case is  clearly  false.   In these  circumstances,  we can see nothing  improper  if  the courts  below  came to the conclusion that  the  application (Ex.  P-2) must have been presented by the appellant to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Assistant  Settlement  Officer.  It is true that no  one  in that  office remembers whether the application came by  post or  was  handed  over  personally by  someone;  but  in  the circumstances when it is established that it was the  appel- lant who got Ex.  P-2 and its enclosures prepared, there can be  no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Ex.   P-3 along with its enclosures must have, been presented or  sent to  the  Assistant  Settlement  Officer  by  the   appellant himself.   Nor  do we think that there is any merit  in  the argument  that the appellant did not know that the  original of Ex.  P-3 385 was  forged.  The original of Ex.  P-3 was a verified  claim in  favour  of the appellant himself and nobody  could  know better  than the appellant, whether he had in fact  got  his claim  verified or not.  The evidence from the  Ministry  of Rehabilitation  is that no claim of the appellant  was  ever verified.  In the circumstances, the inference must be  that the  appellant  know  that the original of Ex.   P-3  was  a forged  document and used it as genuine.  That the  use  was dishonest  is also clear on the facts of this case, for  the appellant  intended thereby to get an allotment to which  he was not entitled and thus make a wrongful gain for  himself. We are also satisfied that the case had gone much beyond the stage of preparation for the copy of the forged document was actually used by the appellant when he sent or presented  it to  the  Assistant  Settlement Officer.   We  are  therefore satisfied that the appellant is rightly convicted.  There is no  force  in this appeal and it is hereby  dismissed.   The appellant  is on bail and steps will now be taken  to  carry out the sentence passed on him.               Appeal dismissed. 386