LexJIBRIAL DIWAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JIBRIAL DIWAN A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JULY 24, 1997 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860 : -> Sections 417, 465 and 471-0ffences undeT'-Essential ingredients of-Cultural show organised by a MinisteT'-lnvitations to Artists-Invitation c letters prepared on the letter head of the MinisteT'-Letters were alleged to be forged-Two accused-Appellant and other co-accused-Allegation against co-accused that he had forged these letters-Co-accused acquitted by Trial Court-Allegation against the appellant was that he had delivered the forged letters to the receipients-Conviction of appellant under sections 417, 465 read D with section 471 by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held by the delivery off orged letters, there was neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to anothe1'-1he act of the appellant could not thus be termed to have been done dishonestly-Likewise the appellant cannot be said to have any intention to defraud because his action resulted in no disad- vantage to any one which but for the deception the person defrauded would E have acted otherwise-The basic ingredients of the act done 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' being missing, the charges under section 47 J read with 465 /PC was totally misplaced-The act or omission of the appellant caused no harm • nor was it likely to cause harm to any person in body mind or repeti- tion-1hus his conviction under section 417 was also totally out of place. F Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P., AIR (1966) SC 523, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 1993. G From the Judgment apd Order dated 31.7.92 of the Bombay High .,..1- Court in Cr!. A. No. 302 of 1988 . V.A. Mehta and A.K. Singh for the Appellant. D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent. H 49 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A The following Order of the Court was delivered : Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we called upon Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra· requiring ... him make submission to support the judgment under appeal. He candidly B admitted that he was unable to do so. We appreciate the fair stance he has adopted. In support of the same, we record our reasons. Shri Azhar Hussain, PW 2 was a Minister at the relevant time. in the State of Maharashtra. He had planned a cultural show whereat some artists .. were invited. The case of the prosecution is that two letters Exh. 28 and c Exh. 29 were. prepared on the letter head of the Minister, whereupon invitations were written to invite Raja Murad, and Javed Khan, PWs. These letters were allegedly forged for these did not bear the signature of the Minister. The show was held on the day scheduled. The invitees came on the basis of those forged letters. Later, a controversy was raised. The matter was investigated by the CBI. Charges were laid against the appellant D as also one Patel, accused No. 2. The second accused stands acquitted by the trial Court. His acquittal has been maintained by the High Court. The allegation against the acquitted accused was that he had forged those letters. That part of the prosecution case on account of the acquittal of the second accused has become sealed. The role of the appellant was that he had delivered those two forged letters to the recipients. For that act, even E though he was acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court has convicted him for offence under Section 417, Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC and awarded him sentences as disclosed in the judgment under appeal. It bears repetition that the appellant was not the forgerer of those F documents. Section 471 enjoins that 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. Section 465 provides that whoever commits forgery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Now the words G 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' have been defined respectively in Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code. 'Dishonestly' has been defined to mean ...... that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'. The word 'fraudulently' has been defined t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.