468 ipc. IPC 468 Section of Indian Penal Code 2022-12-24
468 ipc Rating:
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a comprehensive legal code that lays down the laws and penalties for various criminal offenses in India. The IPC is divided into several chapters, each of which covers a specific type of offense. One of these chapters is Chapter XXII, which deals with offenses related to criminal intimidation, insult, and annoyance. Section 468 of the IPC falls under this chapter and deals with the offense of forgery of record of court or of public register.
According to Section 468 of the IPC, whoever forges any document of a court of justice or of any register of birth, baptism, marriage, or burial, or any register kept by a public servant as such, or any certificate or license granted by a public servant as such, or any document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or any document purporting to be a copy of an original document or translation of an original document, with the intention of using it as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The offense of forgery of a court or public register is a serious crime in India, as it involves tampering with legal documents and records, which can have far-reaching consequences. Forging a document of a court of justice or a public register not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also undermines the trust of the public in the legal system. Similarly, forging a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity or a copy of an original document can lead to serious consequences, such as wrongful prosecution or wrongful acquittal of a person.
In order to prove the offense of forgery of a court or public register, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention to use the forged document as genuine. This means that the accused must have had the intention to deceive someone by presenting the forged document as genuine. It is not necessary that the accused must have actually used the forged document or that someone must have been deceived by it.
In conclusion, the offense of forgery of a court or public register under Section 468 of the IPC is a serious crime in India that is punishable by imprisonment and fine. The offense involves tampering with legal documents and records, which can have far-reaching consequences and undermine the integrity of the legal system.
Can the court quash the FIR lodged under Section 468 IPC?
But the trial is proceeding. In any event, even dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear oral evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in the loan application and other documents. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us. PW-8 Garja Ram, the alleged beneficiary, has stated that he is an illiterate and does not sign and only thumb marks documents. In the present case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course of investigation cannot be disputed. Article shared by Legal Provisions of Section 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Legal Notice format u/s 406, 420, 468, 471, IPC and u/s 138, 142, NI Act.
Section 120: the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth of the longest term for such imprisonment. New Delhi, the said cheque also dishonored due to funds insufficient. Handwriting expert opined that the signatures in the loan application and other documents did not match the signatures of Nathu Ram, Kirpu and others but only matched the signature of appellant-Sukh Ram. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that High Court failed to appreciate that no case was pending before the executive magistrate and he was not competent to take the specimen signatures of the witnesses; there was no occasion for the police to produce the witnesses before him and obtain their signatures. Where the accused, a bank employee, took a blank draft, the second accused forged the signature of an agent on it, and the third accused opened an account in the name of a fictitious person and encashed the forged draft, the co-conspirator accused admitting to have forged the signature on the blank bank draft, his plea that he only tried to oblige the other accused persons and knew nothing more was not acceptable, and all of them were guilty under sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B of the Code.
Criminal Action after 5 Years and Bar of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
What is forgery for the purpose of harming reputation? C would not apply. In Criminal Appeal Nos. The appellant shall be taken to custody to serve out the remaining sentence. From the very beginning, the concerned officials were required to scrutinize the papers i. The High Court differentiated the cases relied upon by the trial court from the case at hand on facts as also on law. The Judge closed the case in Oct 2015 to be re-opened when I come to India, Is this now considered time barred since the complaint was filed in yr 2008? However, as observed by the High Court, during the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave the specimen signatures willingly.
An FIR was registered and on completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the government, chargesheet was filed against the appellant—Sukh Ram Gram Sewak, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. Criminal Complaint after 5 years has lapsed and whether the bar under Section 468 of Cr. The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty of forging loan applications of PW-5 and PW-7 Ex. State of Punjab, 1994 5 SCC 152. High Court pointed out that in the matter at hand, admittedly, the authority-Executive Magistrate before whom the specimen signatures were given did not have the authority to enquire into or try the case.
To substantiate the prosecution case, PW-5 Nathu Ram, PW-6 Sant Ram and PW-8 Garja Ram were examined who deposed that they did not apply for any loan and nor did they put their signatures in the documents. During the relevant time, admittedly, appellant-Sukh Ram was posted as Gram Sewak and he was to collect applications from the prospective loanees duly signed, thumb impressions marked by them and certain columns of the application were required to be filled up by him. Consequently, a case was registered against the appellant—Sukh Ram, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. If not, why should not make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings? On being convicted, the appellant appeared before the High Court and he was questioned about the sentence and the High Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. Would it be open to a person to seek the assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing under section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a civil suit in which the question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? The section 468 of Cr. Question: Allegation made under 468 IPC. What should I do now? The High Court pointed out that even though the executive magistrate before whom the specimen signatures were given did not have the authority to enquire into or try the case; however, PW-5 and PW-7 gave specimen signatures voluntarily during the course of investigation and differentiated the cases relied on by the trial court.
However, you can also file for recovery under 452 CrPC but you should have claimed the money within 6 months. Likewise, PW-6 Sant Ram has also stated that he did not apply for any loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and specifically denied the execution of the loan documents Exs. Section 467 of Indian Penal Code. Section 468 Cheating: Section 415 IPC Punishment under Section 417: punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. CBI appeal is still before the SC, and may get decided in 2015 end. Provisions under these sections are: Section 466 of Indian Penal Code. Can the court quash the FIR lodged under Section 468 IPC? Common facts arising out of these criminal appeals are as follows:- During the relevant point of time i.
The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by magistrate of the first class. PW-5 Nathu Ram has categorically stated that he did not apply for any loan from the UCO Bank Darlalghat and that application for loan Exs. I wrote to them saying that please give me another date. Ram Banu Misra, 1980 2 SCC 343: AIR 1980 SC 791, that a suitable legislation be brought along the lines of Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1980, to provide for the investiture of Magistrates with powers to issue directions to any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures and handwriting but no such powers existed prior to such amendment. High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain vs.
There is no other method to conclude this criminal proceeding. A chart showing the period of limitation applicable under section 468 of Cr. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is more than 75 years of age and is suffering from severe ailments; he has prayed for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. This offence is also an aggravated form of forgery for which enhanced punishment has been prescribed. Bar of limitation under Section 468 2 c — three years Forgery for purpose of cheating Punishment under Section 468 IPC: Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court.