Is absence of the original document alleged to be forged by itself a ground to quash a forgery prosecution?

Paragraph 16Notwithstanding this position, even on merits of the challenge, we find that the entire premise on which the accused seeks discharge, namely absence of the original plan on the basis of which the charge of forgery was framed does not stand on firm ground. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the decision in Rama Shanker Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P.[^10]. The appellants were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that some insertions/changes were made in a sale deed that was presented for registration. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants after holding that there was no proof of forgery of the original sale deed, which was not produced before the Court. The High Court, however, held that the contents of the certified copy of the sale deed were different from what was decided to be sold and what was actually incorporated in the sale deed. The appellants were, thus, convicted for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code. Before this Court, it was urged that there was no evidence of forgery of the original sale deed as it was not available on record. In that context, it was observed as under:

Paragraph 17From the aforesaid decision of the three Judge Bench, it can be seen that the original sale deed alleged to have been forged was not produced before the Court. Despite such position, this Court held that absence of the original sale deed, by itself, could not be the basis to record a finding that in no case, the offence of forgery could not be established. It observed “We do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt. This is in accord with the general principle of our jurisprudence.” Thus, absence of production of the original document by itself was not found fatal for the prosecution case. In other words, on the basis of other evidence on record, the prosecution could attempt to prove the offence of forgery, albeit beyond reasonable doubt. This would naturally depend on the facts of each case. Thus, in view of the decision in Rama Shanker Lal (supra), absence of the original document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case. It is only after evaluating the entire prosecution material that a finding would be required to be recorded as to whether the charge of forgery has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the prosecution could result in acquittal at the conclusion of the trial is a different matter altogether.

Paragraph 19It is, thus, clear that absence of the original document relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution. In other words, the prosecution can attempt to bring home the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, the entire proceedings would not be liable to be quashed without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to attempt to prove the charge at the trial as seen in the facts of the present case.