Punishment for Forgery - section 465

Any famous judgment of Section 465, Indian Penal Code if any?

Smt. Geddam Mounica v. K. Sudarsana Rao And Anr.: The accused in the case, was aggrieved by the prior judgment and went on to file an appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge. The primary reason for the court to acquit the accused in this particular case was that without a very specific charge to be charged for an offence under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. This Offence of forgery which is asserted in Section 463 is punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, the court is not entitled to convict the accused for this offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. But in this particular case, the court had already acquitted the accused for an offence given under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not open to the court to convict the accused for an offence which is given under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This particular acquittal was particularly in absence of a very particular charge which is primarily not sustainable.

The court went on to point out that the reasoning of the trial court to have invoked aid from Section 221 of Cr. P.C. was not appropriate. He also went on to assert that the ingredients of an offence under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, also the ingredients of the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. While section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, which refers to an initial making of a particularly incorrect record. Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code deals with a certain kind of document which has already been made. The court also went on to point out that the primary accusation was that of forgery which is to be committed by making certain alterations on the register and as this particular register was not produced before the court, it was led with no finding which could be recorded and the accused had committed the offence of forgery which is as given under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further observed that by the learned sessions judge or by no injury or the particularly that caused to the complainant. When she continued in service to the pursuance of the stay orders which were granted.

Get in touch with the best lawyer online

The grounds under section 463 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code were primarily open to the court to depend upon Section 221 of Cr. P.C. and the person who was convicted with an offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, which though there was no specific charge for the offence was observed by the learned judge, the judgment which was considered to be offending to common sense and particularly injudicious.

The argument which was supported with the contention that was recorded by the Magistrate was to be restored but with acquittal that was set aside. As an alternative, he primarily contends that the Criminal Appeal in the case, which may be allowed and the case can be remanded to the trial court for a much fresher trial which points to a proper and much distinct charge for the Offence of forgery as given under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

The point that was asserted here was that if the consideration was to allow the appeal which has to be allowed and also whether the accused can simply be convicted for the same offence under Section 463 of IPC and which is punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, which was whether the case has to be remanded for a much fresher trial.

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code where there is particularly no doubt about the Magistrate commission of error leading to the verdict of conviction of the accused of the same offence, wherein there is no very particular charge which was framed for the same offence. It cannot also be precisely said that an offence that was taken under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, is a way lesser offence comparatively than the offence under section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, they were considered to have different nature.