In a forgery case arising from an alleged interpolated building plan, the Supreme Court restored the trial court proceedings and holds that absence of the original document does not automatically entitle the accused to discharge. The Court clarified that a party cannot be permitted to file successive Section 482 CrPC petitions to re-canvass the very same contention that was already considered and rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court in earlier proceedings between the same parties.
The Apex Court explained that the principle of issue estoppel squarely applies in criminal proceedings where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached against a party, precluding re-agitation of the same issue in subsequent proceedings. The Court also clarified that absence of the original document alleged to have been forged does not, by itself, sound the death knell of the prosecution case. The prosecution can attempt to prove the offence of forgery on the basis of circumstantial and other evidence on record, subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt at trial.
Additional documents gathered during investigation can be produced even after filing of the chargesheet with the permission of the court, and the word ‘shall’ in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory and not mandatory. Also, at the stage of framing of charge under Section 227 CrPC, the court is not required to sift through the entire evidence as if conducting a trial. It is sufficient if the material on record discloses a grave suspicion against the accused so as to sustain a trial, added the Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyal observed that the initial challenge raised by the accused to the FIR and the chargesheet was unsuccessful with the dismissal of criminal writ petition on Oct 31, 2023. The principal ground of challenge therein was the absence of the original plan alleged to have been forged. The order of the Division Bench refusing to set aside the order framing charge was binding on the accused, and a fresh attempt to raise a similar challenge could not have been undertaken without challenging the order dated Oct 31, 2023.
The Court further observed that the Single Judge failed to take into consideration the earlier adjudication by the Division Bench, which had declined to interfere with the order framing charge. The principle of issue estoppel squarely applied, as the same ground of challenge raised earlier but unsuccessfully was sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party. The Court placed reliance on the three-Judge Bench decision in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab [1969 INSC 3], which explained that issue estoppel precludes the reception of evidence to disturb a finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently, even for a different offence.
On merits, the Court observed that the entire premise on which the accused sought discharge, namely the absence of the original plan, did not stand on firm ground. Referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in Rama Shanker Lal v. State of U.P. [(1971) 3 SCC 905], the Court noted that absence of the original document alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case. The prosecution could attempt to prove the offence of forgery on the basis of other evidence on record, albeit beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai [2002 INSC 178], holding that additional documents gathered during investigation can be produced even after filing of the chargesheet with the permission of the Court.
The Court further observed that at the stage of framing of charge under Section 227 of the Code, the Court cannot sift through the entire evidence forming part of the chargesheet with a view to finding whether such evidence could result in conviction. It would be sufficient if a grave suspicion is raised against the accused on the basis of such material so as to sustain a trial.
Briefly, the appellant-informant and the first respondent-accused are neighbours in Goa. The accused along with her father-in-law had undertaken construction pursuant to License dated April 13, 1971, issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council. The informant alleged that the structure erected by the accused was illegal and was based on an interpolated and forged copy of the original approved plan drawn by Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas. On July 05, 2012, the informant lodged a report with the Calangute Police Station, leading to registration of FIR on July 18, 2012, for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, a final report was filed and the Judicial Magistrate First Class held that there was prima facie material on record to frame charge against the accused. The accused filed a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the revision, the accused also filed criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the FIR and the chargesheet. The Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere with the order framing charge. The father-in-law of the accused expired during these proceedings, and the proceedings abated against him.
Thereafter, the accused filed yet another criminal writ petition re-agitating the same contention that the original plan had not been placed on record and, therefore, the charge of forgery could not be sustained. The Single Judge accepted this contention, set aside the order framing charge as well as the order of the Sessions Court, and discharged the accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Penal Code.
