Summary
The Supreme Court sustained acquittals in a prosecution concerning an impersonated power of attorney and a subsequent mortgage. Forgery required proof that the accused made the false document within Section 464; benefit from the transaction did not establish that element. The prosecution had failed to trace the impersonator or prove the necessary link to the respondents. Suspicion could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant’s appeals were dismissed; civil cancellation of the mortgage was separately noted.
Issues
- Whether beneficiary status and involvement in the subsequent mortgage established that the respondents made the forged power of attorney.
- Whether the prosecution proved the forgery charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Sections 463, 464 and 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860Forgery requires a false document made within Section 464 together with the requisite intent under Section 463. Without proof of making by the accused, the convictions under Section 465 could not be sustained on this evidence. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29)
Held
- Sections 463 and 464 must be read together: making a false document is an ingredient of forgery, while the requisite fraudulent purpose must also be established. Penal liability cannot be expanded by implication beyond the statutory requirements. (¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 26, 29)
- There was no finding supported by proof that either respondent made the impugned false document. The impersonator executed it, and being beneficiary of the power of attorney or executant of the later mortgage did not fill that evidentiary gap. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- The investigator failed to trace the impersonator or establish the relationship connecting her to the first respondent. Strong suspicion and a transaction benefiting the accused could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- The High Court’s acquittals therefore required no interference. The Court separately noted the available civil remedy and the reported cancellation of the mortgage and recovery of the property. (¶¶ 26, 29, 30)
Result
Complainant’s appeals dismissed. High Court acquittals sustained; no interference with the separate civil cancellation of the mortgage.