# Sui>REME OOlJRT REPoRTS [1963) BODHURAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 376
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-08-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. ~29 of 1960
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, K. N. Wanchoo, J. c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sui-reme-ooljrt-reports-1963-bodhuram-v-state-of-rajasthan-2627
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Forgery-Application for
compensation
by di•placed
~·rson--Production of attested copy of forg,d verified claim before
lettlement Officer--If amounts to use of forged document ""
wenuine-Oomplaint by Settlement Officer, if required-Gode of
Criminal Procedure 1898 (5 of 1898), s. 195(1)(c)-lndian
Penal Gode, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 471-Displaced Persons
(Oompensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
(44 of 1954)
Rules.
The appellant, a displaced person, made an application
for compensation before the As•istant Settlement Officer
functioning under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and in support of that appli·
cation submitted an attested copy of his verified claim
which on enquiry was found to be a fabricated document. The
appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge under
s. 471 and s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence of
imprisonment but set aside the fine.
The decision of the
Sessions Judge was affirmed by the High Court in revision.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the Assistant
Settlement Officer was a court within the meaning of s. 195(1)
(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the absence of
a complaint by him the prosecution was incompetent and that
the production of the copy of the verified claim was no
offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code committed.
Held, that no complaint by the Assistant Settlement
Oflicer under s. 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ceuld be necessary, assuming that he was a court, since what
was produced before him was not the original forged document
but a copy of it. It was clear from the language of that
section that it was only when the forged document was
produced in court that that complaint by that court was
necMsary.
Sanmu/chw•gh v. The King, (1949) L. R. 77 I. A. 7,
applied;
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
377
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code penalised the
use of a forged document as genuine. Where, as in the
present case, an attested copy would serve the purpose,
production of such a copy would amount to use of the
ol'iginal forged
document as
genuine.
The difference
betweens. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 195(l)(c) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was that while the former
did not require the production of the forged document itself,
in court, the latter did so.
CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. ~29 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated August 19, 1960, of the Rajasthan
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959.
Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
1962.
July 24. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
W.aNcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave against the judgment of the Rajastha.n High
Court.
The appellant is a displaced person from
West Pakistan. He obtained a registration card
meant for displaced persons from the Rehabilitation
Department in July 194:9.
In 11:154, the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
(No. 44 of 1954) was enacted.
Thereafter a notifioation was. issued by the Central Government
under the Act requiring displaced persons having
verified claims to make applications for payment
of compensation. Thereupon the appellant made
an application for compensa.tion (Ex. P-2) to the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Al war in March 1955,
as required under the Act and the Rules framed
thereund'.lr·
In support of that application, he
submitted an attested copy of his verified claim
(Ex. P-3). It appears t~at the 4ssista~t Se~tlell\el\~
\
'
''
BudhM Ram
v.
Ytate of Rojcuthan
Wanchi• J.
Budhu Ram
v.
State of Rajeslhan
wanchoo J.
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
Officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allotable' agricultural land to the appellant on quasipermanent basis, and asked the Tehsildar Nagar
to make a proposal in that connection in consultation with the appellant. In the meantime, secret
informa

## Text

.JUiy u.
378
-
Sui>REME OOlJRT REPoRTS [1963)
BODHURAM
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Forgery-Application for
compensation
by di•placed
~·rson--Production of attested copy of forg,d verified claim before
lettlement Officer--If amounts to use of forged document ""
wenuine-Oomplaint by Settlement Officer, if required-Gode of
Criminal Procedure 1898 (5 of 1898), s. 195(1)(c)-lndian
Penal Gode, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 471-Displaced Persons
(Oompensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
(44 of 1954)
Rules.
The appellant, a displaced person, made an application
for compensation before the As•istant Settlement Officer
functioning under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and in support of that appli·
cation submitted an attested copy of his verified claim
which on enquiry was found to be a fabricated document. The
appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge under
s. 471 and s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence of
imprisonment but set aside the fine.
The decision of the
Sessions Judge was affirmed by the High Court in revision.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the Assistant
Settlement Officer was a court within the meaning of s. 195(1)
(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the absence of
a complaint by him the prosecution was incompetent and that
the production of the copy of the verified claim was no
offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code committed.
Held, that no complaint by the Assistant Settlement
Oflicer under s. 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ceuld be necessary, assuming that he was a court, since what
was produced before him was not the original forged document
but a copy of it. It was clear from the language of that
section that it was only when the forged document was
produced in court that that complaint by that court was
necMsary.
Sanmu/chw•gh v. The King, (1949) L. R. 77 I. A. 7,
applied;
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
377
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code penalised the
use of a forged document as genuine. Where, as in the
present case, an attested copy would serve the purpose,
production of such a copy would amount to use of the
ol'iginal forged
document as
genuine.
The difference
betweens. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 195(l)(c) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was that while the former
did not require the production of the forged document itself,
in court, the latter did so.
CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. ~29 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated August 19, 1960, of the Rajasthan
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959.
Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
1962.
July 24. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
W.aNcHoo, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave against the judgment of the Rajastha.n High
Court.
The appellant is a displaced person from
West Pakistan. He obtained a registration card
meant for displaced persons from the Rehabilitation
Department in July 194:9.
In 11:154, the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
(No. 44 of 1954) was enacted.
Thereafter a notifioation was. issued by the Central Government
under the Act requiring displaced persons having
verified claims to make applications for payment
of compensation. Thereupon the appellant made
an application for compensa.tion (Ex. P-2) to the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Al war in March 1955,
as required under the Act and the Rules framed
thereund'.lr·
In support of that application, he
submitted an attested copy of his verified claim
(Ex. P-3). It appears t~at the 4ssista~t Se~tlell\el\~
\
'
''
BudhM Ram
v.
Ytate of Rojcuthan
Wanchi• J.
Budhu Ram
v.
State of Rajeslhan
wanchoo J.
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
Officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allotable' agricultural land to the appellant on quasipermanent basis, and asked the Tehsildar Nagar
to make a proposal in that connection in consultation with the appellant. In the meantime, secret
information was received that displaced persons in
that area had obtained allotment of land on false
and forged verified claims. The matter was then
inquired into and it was found that the claim for
compensation made by the appellant was based on
a fabricated verified claim.
Consequently, the
appellant was prosecuted under ss. 46ll, 4 71 and
420 read with s. 5ll of the Indian PPnal Code and
was committed for trial to the Court of Session,
Al war.
It may be mentioned that the original of
which Ex. l'-3 is a copy submitted along with the
application (Ex. P-2) was never produced either
before the Assistant Settlement Officer or in the
Sessions Court. The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom it was transferred.
The appellant's defence there was that the application (Ex· P-2) had not been submitted by him and
that he had nothing to do with the said application
or the enclosures accompanying it. He also contendoo that as the Assistant SPttlement Officer, was
acting as a court and as the offence under s. 4 7 l
was alleged to have been committed in respect of
a document produced or given in evidence in pro·
ceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, his
prosecution was incompetent in the absence of a
complaint by the Assistant Settlement Officer.
The
Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the contention of
the appellant that any complaint by the Assistant
Settlement Officer was necessary before cognizance
could be taken of the offence under s. 4 71 of the
Indian Penal Code. He further held on the eviqence led by the prosecution that the application
•
1
3 S.C.R.
SUPRE:\fE COURT REPORTS
379
(Ex. P-2) and the copy of the verified claim (Ex.
P-3) and other papers accompanying the application were got prepared by the appellant and got
attested and verified by him.
He further held that
though there was no direct proof of the fact that
the application (Ex. P-2) was put in by the appellant in the office of the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Alwar, there could be no d<riubt in the
circumstances of the case that the application
(Ex. P-2) along with its enclosures could only have
been put in by the appellant or by someone on his
behalf in the office of the Assistant Settlement
Officer.
He, therefore, convicted the appellant
under s. 471 as well as under s. 420 read with
s. 511 of the Indian Pena.I Code and sentenced him
to imprisonment as well as fine.
There was then
an appeal by the appellant to the Sessions Judge,
Alwar. Tbis appeal was dismissed with the modification that the sentence of fine was set aside. The
substantive sentence of imprisonment, which was
two years rigorous imprisonment under s. 471 and
one year's rigorous imprisonment under s. 420 read
with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code, has been
made to run concurrently by both the courts.
The appellant then went in revision to the
High Court and the main point urged there was
that the prosecution was incompetent in view of
s. 195 ( l) ( c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
the absence of a complaint by the Assistant Settlement Ufficer, Alwar. The High Court rejected this
contention. Further, the findings of the two comts
below were challenged on the merits; but the High
Court held that there was no reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
the two c0urts below. Finally, it was contended
that as Ex. P-3 was only a copy there could be no
offence under s. 471, but this contention was also
rejected by the High Court.
In the result, the
:ijigh Court confirmed the judgment of. the Sess•ollE!
19~•
Budhu R.m
••
Stale of R•Jast/lan
WanchooJ.
B_'Wlhu Ram
••
State of Uaj~athan
W.ane_hoo _.1,
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
Judge. There was theu an application for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was rejected.
The appellant then came to this Court for special
leave, which was granted; and that is how the
matter has come up before us.
Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the points which were urged in the High Court,
before us.
His firat contention is that the Assistant
Settlement Officer must. be deemed to be a court
within the meaning of s. 195 (1) (c) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and therefore the prosecution
was incompetent in the absence of a complaint by
the Assistant Settlement Officer. Further it is contended that as Ex. P-3 is only a copy there can be
no offence under s. 47l of the Indian Penal Code,
even if it be accepted that the application (Ex.
P-2) along with its enclosures was filed before the
Assistant Settlement Officer by the appellant or on
his behalf. Lastly, it is contented that there is no
evidence to prove that the application (Ex. P-2)
was made by the appellant or on his behalf.
We do not think it necessary for the purposes
of this appeal to decide
whether the Assistant
Settlement Officer when acting under Act 44 of
1954 can be deemed to be a
court within the
meaning of s. 195 (l) (c) of the Code of Criminal
procedure. We shall assume for present purposes
that he is a court to which s. 195 (1) (c) applies.
But the question still remains whether a complaint
by the Assistant Settlement Officer was necessary
where as in this case it was not the original forged
doument which was produced before him but a
copy thereof.
J his question came up for consideration before the Judicial Committee in Sanmukh Singh
v. The King (1), and it was held thats. 195 (1) (c)
refers only to the document alleged to be forged
~nd not to a copy of it and therefore the absence
of a complaint from a court where copies of forged
. . \~) \l!M91 L. R. 77 I. A. 7.
.
.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPoR'i'S
documents are produced is no bar to the trial for
an offence of forgery or using a forged document.
The Judicial Committee observed that •'the section
can only refer to the document alleged to be forged,
not to a copy of it. This view, which accords with
the plain grammatical meaning of the words, is
supported by the practical common sense of the
matter, for, as was observed in that court (Girdharilal v. The Emperor) (1 ), the court before which a
copy of a document is produced is not reaJly in a
position to express any opinion on the genuineness
of the original. It was suggested that a forged
document might at least be s&id to be •given in evidence' if a copy was produced, but it appears to their
Lordships that, though by production of a copy
secondary evidence of the contents of a document
might be said to be given, the forged document
itself would not thus be given in evidence". We
respectfully agree with this view.
Section 195(1) ( c) is in these termsi-
"195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
( a)
(b)
(c) of any offence described in section
463 or punishable under section 471, section
475 or section 476 of the same Oode, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed
by a party to any proceeding in any Court in
respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in such proceeding, except on the
complaint in writing of such court, or of some
other Court to which such Court is subordinate."
It will be seen on a plain grammatic1tl oonstruotfoh
of this provision that a complaint by the court ia
(ll A,l,R, (1925) Qudh •US,
lY62
Bullw Rdlit
y,
State of Rajstlhan
Wsnth10 J,
1952 --
••
Stile I} Rojasthan
·WaneAoo J
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
required where the offence is of forging or of using
as genuine any document which is known or believ·
ed to be a forged document when such document
is produced or given in evidence in court. It is
clear therefore that it is only when the forged
doet;ment is produced in Court that a complaint by
the Court is required. Where, however, what is
produced before the court is not the forged document itself, s. 195(l)(c) will not apply on its terms.
The reason for this, as stated by the Judicial Committee, ''is the practical common sense of the
matter, for the court before which a copy of a
document is produced is not really in a position to
express any opinion on the genuineness of the
original". Therefore, even if the Assistant Settlement Officer is assumed to be a court within the
meaning of s. 195(l)cc) no complaint was necessary
because the forged document itself was not produced before the Assistant Settlement Officer in this
case but only a copy thereof.
This brings us to the next question, namely,
whether an offence under s. 4 7 L of the Indian .Penal
Code can be said to have been committed in the
circumstances of the present case. In this connection we may briefly refer to the facts found by the
Sessions Court, with respect to Ex. P-3. These
facts are that the original of Ex. P-3 was given by
the appellant to Hotu Ram, a petition-writer, and
he prepared the copy Ex. P-3.
This copy was then
presented to Mahesh Gaur, an Oaths Commissioner,
who compared it with the original and then attested it. This attested copy was then sent as an
enclosure along with the application _for compensation (Ex. P-2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer.
Further, there is clear evidence that the original
of Ex. P-3 must have been forged for no such document was issued from the Office of the Chief Settle-
-
-+
..
•.
a s.c.R.
SvPREME COURT REPORTS
383
ment Commissioner, Ministry of Rehabilita.tion,
Delhi. Now s.471 is in these words:-
"Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly
uses as genuine any document which he knows
or ha.a reason to believe to be a forged docu·
ment, sha.11 be punished in the same manner
as if he had forged such document."
There can be no doubt that'the appellant used the
original of Ex. p.3 which was a forged document
when he got the copy of it attested by the Oaths
Commissioner. Further when he sent this copy
along with his application (Ex. P-2) to the Assistant
Settlement Officer, his intention was that the
original which was a forged document should be
u&ed as genuine through the production of a copy
before the Assistant Settlement Officer. It appears
that under the Rules under the Act No. 44 of 1954
it is not necessary to send the original verified claim
and it is enough if an attested copy is sent and that is
w:hat the appellant did. When he sent the attested
copy of the original which was forged he was clearly
usJng the original forged document, for by the produption of the copy he was giving secondary eviden·
ce of the contents of a document which he knew or
had reason to believe to be forged. What s.471
requires is the use as genuine of any docum~mt
which is known or believed to be a forged document;
it does not lay down that such use can only occur
when the original itself is produced, for the section
does not require the production of the original.
W~re, for example, under the Rules, an attested
copy would suffice the production of an attested copy
would in our opinion amount to use of the original
document as genuine if it is known or is believed to
be a forged document. The difference between
s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code ands. 195(l)(c) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is that while
s.195 1 c) requirt>s the production of the forged
docμment. itself in a court to make it necessary for
1118
Buj/." il&m
v.
S1ate 1/ lfl$q1lh•n
--
196~
. ;-.-
. · 'Bf1dliu Ram
: . ".
si;_·li-fJf Rojas:MJ11
t--
'1a11ch1JO J.
384
SUPREME OOUltT REPoRTS [I 9fJ3] ·
a complaint to be filed before a person can be prosecuted for forging or using such document as
genuine, s. 471 does not require the production of
the original forged document. Whera it is possible
. to produce an attested copy of the forged dooument
and that attested copy will serve the purpose of
the original forged document there would in our
opinion be use of the origin~! forged document as
geunine, though through the attested eopy.
We
are, therefore, of opinion
that as an attested
copy of a forged document was produced in· this
case before the Assistant Settlement Officer, it must
be held that there was use of the document, which
was known or was believed to be a forged document
within the meaning of s. 4 71.
Lastly, it was urged that there was nothing to
show. that the appellant knew that the document
was forged and also that there was no proof that
the appellant was responsible for the production of
Ex. P-3 as an enolosure to the application CEx. P-2)
before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The appellant's case, as we have already set out, was that he
never got Ex. P-2 prepared; nor did he get Ex. P-3
prepared and attested. That c~se is cleStrlY false.
In these oiroumstances, we can see nothing improper
if the oourts below oa.me to the conoluaion that the
application (Ex. P-2) must have been presented by
the appellant to the Assistant Settlement Offioer.
It is true that no one in that office remembers
whether the applicatfon came by post or was h'1>Dded over personally by someone; but in the oircumsta.noes when it is established that it was the appellant who got Ex. P-2 and its enclosures prepared,
there can be no difficulty in coming to the oonclusion
that Ex. P-3 along with its enclosures must have
been presented or sent to the Assistant Settlement
Officer by the appellant himself. Nor do we think
that there is any merit in the argument that the
appellant did not know that the original of Ex. P-3
)
'{
3 s.o'.it.
StJPRilME · c6b:a'.r REPORTS
'
'
385
was forged.
The original of Ex. P-3 was a verified
claim in favour of the appellant himself and nobody
could know better than the appellant, whether he
had in fact got his claim verified or not. The
evidence from the Ministry of Rehabilitation is that
no claim of the appellant was ever verified. In the
circumstances, the inference must be that the appellant knew that the original of Ex. P-3 was a forged
document and used it as genuine. That the use was
dishonest is also clear on the facts of this case, for
the appellant intended thereby to get an allotment
to which he was not entitled and thus make a
wrongful gain for himself. We are also satisfied
that the case had gone much beyond the stage of
preparation for the copy of the forged document
was actually used by the appellant when he sent or
presented it to the Assistant Settlement Officer. We
are therefore satisfied that the appellant is rightly
convicted. There is no force in this appeal and it
is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail and
steps will now be taken to carry out the sentence
passed on him.
Appeal dismissed.
1962
Budhu Ram
v.
Stal• of Rojoslhan
WanclioaJ.