Justice Gauba has passed the judgment titled SAHENDRA LAL TREAHAN vs STATE on 26.02.2019.
One of the respondents had claimed that a cheque was stolen and for this some NCR was lodged a copy whereof was in existence. The police however of the opinion that the NCR was a fabricated one. The document was sent for forensic scrutiny but the forensic experts were unable to give any definitive opinion as to its authorship primarily for the reason that it was only a photocopy.
A case however was initiated but the Magistrate discharged the accused. When the matter came before the High Court, it opined that there was possibility of inferring the forgery.
The High Court observed “The view taken by the courts below is apparently perverse and there is a case made out for this Court to interfere. The observation that in absence of the “original” NCR, the case cannot proceed further is missing the point. The document which was actually used by the third respondent is only a photocopy. For purposes of the criminal prosecution brought against the second and third respondents, that photocopy is the “original” or primary document. In the context of documents the law only makes a distinction between “primary” and “secondary evidence”. It may not have been possible to establish the authorship. But then, it does not call for much imagination for concluding that the document was clearly a forged and fabricated one. The date of printing the form used for it being prepared is later in point of time. Since there is evidence available, particularly in the statement of ASI Mahavir Singh that the said apparently forged photocopy of the NCR had come from the hands of the third respondent, she (and the second respondent, both acting in concert) are answerable”.
Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, firstname.lastname@example.org