Case Analysis: Budhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan

Case Details

Case name: Budhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: WANCHOO, J.
Date of decision: 24 July 1962
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1960; Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal (by special leave)
Source court or forum: Supreme Court of India

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Budhu Ram, was a displaced person from West Pakistan who obtained a registration card in July 1949. In March 1955 he filed an application for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar, and enclosed an attested copy of a verified claim (Ex P‑3). The original of the verified claim was never produced before the Assistant Settlement Officer or the Sessions Court and was later found to be forged. Secret information revealed that several displaced persons in the area had obtained land allotments on false and forged verified claims. Consequently, the appellant was prosecuted under sections 466, 471 and 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge resulted in a conviction for use of a forged document and cheating, imposing rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant appealed to the Sessions Judge, Alwar; the appeal was dismissed, although the fine was set aside. He then filed Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1959 before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that the prosecution was incompetent because no complaint under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been filed and that only a copy of the forged document had been produced. The High Court rejected those contentions, affirmed the conviction and the sentence of concurrent imprisonment, and dismissed the revision.

Subsequently, the appellant obtained special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1960). The appeal challenged the conviction and the legal validity of the prosecution on the grounds outlined above.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was called upon to determine three inter‑related questions:

1. Procedural requirement of a complaint: Whether section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandated a written complaint by the Assistant Settlement Officer before cognizance could be taken of an offence under section 471 IPC when only an attested copy of a forged document, and not the original, was produced before the officer.

2. Scope of section 471 IPC: Whether the use of an attested copy of a forged verified claim, submitted with the compensation application, fell within the ambit of “use as genuine” contemplated by section 471 IPC.

3. Evidential burden on the appellant: Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant himself prepared and submitted the application and the attested copy and that he possessed knowledge, or had reason to believe, that the original verified claim was forged, thereby satisfying the mens rea required for conviction under sections 471 and 420 read with 511 IPC.

The appellant contended that the Assistant Settlement Officer was a court within the meaning of section 195(1)(c) and that, consequently, a complaint was indispensable; that only a copy of the verified claim had been produced, precluding liability under section 471; and that there was no evidence he had prepared or submitted the documents or knew of the forgery. The State argued that the requirement of a complaint arose only when the forged document itself was produced, that an attested copy qualified as a “document” for the purposes of section 471, and that the appellant’s role in preparing and submitting the copy, together with his knowledge of its falsity, satisfied the statutory elements.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of forgery or of using a forged document as genuine unless a complaint in writing is made by that court or a subordinate court. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code punishes a person who fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged. Sections 466, 420 and 511 IPC were also invoked: section 466 deals with forgery of documents, section 420 with cheating, and section 511 prescribes the penalty for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, permitted the submission of an attested copy of a verified claim in lieu of the original.

The legal principles applied by the Court included a grammatical and purposive construction of section 195(1)(c), focusing on the phrase “document produced or given in evidence,” and the principle that the offence under section 471 is complete when the accused uses a document he knows or believes to be forged as genuine, irrespective of whether the original or a copy is produced.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court first examined the scope of section 195(1)(c). It held that the provision required a written complaint only when the forged document itself was produced before the court. Because only an attested copy of the verified claim had been produced before the Assistant Settlement Officer, the statutory bar did not arise. The Court emphasized the plain grammatical construction that “a document produced” referred to the original document, and that a copy could not place the court in a position to form an opinion on its genuineness.

Turning to section 471 IPC, the Court reasoned that the offence was satisfied by the fraudulent use of an attested copy of a forged document. The attested copy served as secondary evidence of the contents of the forged original, and the statute did not require the original to be produced. The Court therefore concluded that the appellant’s submission of the copy with his compensation application amounted to “use as genuine.”

On the evidential burden, the Court accepted the prosecution’s evidence that the appellant had caused the preparation of the application (Ex P‑2) and the attested copy (Ex P‑3), that the copy had been attested by an Oaths Commissioner, and that the original of the verified claim was never produced and was later found to be forged. The Court inferred the appellant’s knowledge of the forgery from the circumstances, including the absence of any genuine verification by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the appellant’s direct involvement in obtaining the attested copy. Accordingly, the Court found that the mens rea required for sections 471 and 420 was established.

Having satisfied the procedural and substantive elements, the Court affirmed the findings of fact and law of the lower courts.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It affirmed the conviction of the appellant under sections 466, 471, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, and rejected the appellant’s request for relief. The Court’s judgment clarified that a complaint under section 195(1)(c) was not mandatory where only a copy of a forged document was produced, and that the use of an attested copy of a forged document fell within the ambit of section 471 IPC.