Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
In Re: T.R. Sriramalu Naidu And … vs Unknown on 21 December, 1928
Equivalent citations: 119 Ind Cas 63
Bench: Waller, Jackson


1. The 1st petitioner has been convicted under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, of forgery. The 2nd petitioner has been convicted of abetment of forgery and of having used the forged document as genuine. The first objection taken is that they should not have been tried together. It is not, in our opinion, sustainable. The offences were parts of one and the same transaction and the 1st petitioner assisted the 2nd at both stages. The 2nd objection is that the 2nd petitioner should not have been convicted of abetment, no separate charge of abetment having been framed against him. We see no reason to enter on a discussion of this somewhat vexed question, for the objection is entirely academic. The Assistant Sessions Judge, though he convicted the petitioner of abetment of the forgery, passed sentence on him only for using the forged document as genuine; so that, even if we upheld the objection, the result, as far as the petitioner is concerned, would be exactly nothing. The Assistant Sessions Judge in following the course he did relied on a ruling from Allahabad: Queen-Empress v. Umrao Lal 23 A. 84 : A.W.N. (1900) 205.

2. “Aikman, J. thought that the words “as if he had forged such document” were directed against some person other than a person proved to be the actual forger and held that a man who both forged a document and used it as genuine could not be sentenced for both offences. With great respect, we cannot agree. All, it seems to us, that Section 471, Indian Penal Cod lays down is that the sentence that can be imposed for the offence of using a forged document as genuine is the same as the sentence that can be imposed for the offence of forgery. They are separate offences and under Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code separate sentences may be passed on an accused person who has been convicted at the same trial of both. The last objection is that the 2nd petitioner should not have been convicted of an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code as it was another person that physically presented the forged document for registration. The evidence shows that the petitioner actively participated in the process of presentation. He was the prime mover in the affair and the 2nd accused was a tool in his hands. He brought her to the registrar’s office, was with her, all the time and knowing the document to be a forgery, aided in its use by lending his services as an identifying witness. He was, therefore, properly convicted.

3. The criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.176 seconds.