STATE OF U.P. versus RANJIT SINGH

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 19-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, R.C. LAHOTI, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
A 
STATE OF U.P. 
.. 
v. 
RANJIT SINGH 
FEBRUARY 19, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 1860-Sections 464, 466 & 468--Respondent forging 
,-
a bail ord~r--Not signed-Conviction by trial cowt-Acquittal by High 
Court-Both courts finding that document forged by respondent-Held, char-
c ges proved beyond doubt-Conviction upheld. 
U.P. Probation of First Offences Act, 1958-Section 4--Respondent 
convicted of forgery-No bad antecedents-Lapse of 27 years-Sessions Judge 
granting benefit of Probation-Upheld-Respondent directed to execute a 
D 
personal bond with one s,urety for 2 years. 
Service Law : 
Conviction of respondent for f orgery--Benefit of probation granted by 
Sessions Court-Acquittal by High Court-Whether High Court can direct the 
E respondent to be treated as in continuour service-Held, no, the order of High 
Court is without jurisdiction. 
Respondent was tried for offences under Sections 417, 420, 466, 467 
& 468 of Indian Penal Code for fabricating a forged bail order for an 
accused. The trial Court convicted the respondent of all charges and 
F passed different sentences. On appeal, the Sessions Court acquitted the 
respondent of the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 467 IPC but 
maintained his conviction and sentence under Sections 466 and 468. But 
the Sessions Court gave the respondent, the benefit of Section 4 of Proba-
tion of First Offenders Act, 1958, on production of a personal bond with 
G 
one surety. 
On Revision, the High Court held. t}laf'since the accused has not 
~ 
signed the bail order, the said_bail-oroer cannot be said to constitute a 
~ 
document and therefore;Tt cannot be said that the ingredients of the 
offence under Sections 466 & 468 have been satisfied and acquitted the 
H respondent under Sections 466 & 468. The High Court also held that the 
\ 
786 
+ 
STATE v. RANJIT SINGH 
787 
grant of benefit under U.P. First Offenders Act by Sessions Court cannot A 
be treated as a punishment and that the respondent must be deemed to be 
in continuous service with all backwages. 
On appeal before this Court the State c.ontended that the prosecu-
tion having fully established the fact that the bail order in question was in 
the hand-writing of the respondent even though the Hon'ble Judge had not 
passed any bail order, the charges under Section 466 and 468 must be held 
B 
to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the High Court com-
mitted error in coming to the conclusion that the ingredients have not been 
satisfied merely because it had not been esta~lished that the signature in 
the bail order had not been put by the accused. 
C 
The respondent contended that in order to attract the offence of 
forgery of record of court under Section 466 it must be established that a 
document has been forged; that since no "wrongful gain" or "wrongful loss" 
can be said to have been achieved by the bail order, there was no dishonesty D 
in making the document and therefore Sections 464, 466 & 468 IPC will 
not be attracted, and that therefore, the High Court was justified in 
acquitting the accused of the charges. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Order of acquittal, passed by the High Court is set 
aside. The respondent is convicted under Section 466 and 468 of IPC but 
sinte the incident itself was of the year 1971 and more than 27 years have 
elapsed in the meantime and the Sessions Judge himself had granted the 
benefit of Section 4 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act and there is 
E 
F 
) 
no bad antecedents, the order of Sessions Judge is affirmed and respon-
dent is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,000 with one surety of 
the like amount for keeping peactr and good behaviour for a period of two 
years. [792-H; 793-A-B] 
2. The conclusion of the High Court that the bail order in question G 
cannot be said to be a 'document' since the accused did not put the 
-. 
signature under the bail order is erroneous. The Court has lost sight of 
the fact that under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is said 
to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, 
seals or executes a document or part of a document. The reasoning of the H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A High Court, therefore, that the bail order without the signature cannot be 
said to be a document thereby not attracting the provisions of Section 464 
of the Indian Penal Code is wholly unsustainable. [791-A-B]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.