SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is not attracted as there is no allegation or evidence that forgery was committed after the letter was filed in court. On merits, no prima facie case of forgery or fraud is made out against the accused; there is no material to show involvement of Respondent No.2 in the alleged forgery, as concluded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Court, and High Court.

Parties
Appellant: Senior Manager (P&D), RIICO Ltd.; Respondent: The State of Rajasthan; Respondent: Respondent No.2 (M/s. Kanha Refined Oil & Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi Setia, Partner)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Fraud, Cognizance Under Section 195 Cr PC, Protest Petition, Investigation Bar, Prima Facie Assessment
Criminal Law Procedural Law Forgery Fraud Cognizance Under Section 195 Cr PC Protest Petition Investigation Bar Prima Facie Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Senior Manager (P&D), RIICO Ltd.

Appellant

The State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Respondent No.2 (M/s. Kanha Refined Oil & Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. through Ravi Setia, Partner)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC bars police investigation/court cognizance regarding forgery before document is filed in court
  2. 2 Whether prima facie case of forgery/fraud is made against Respondent No.2

Ratio Decidendi

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is not attracted as there is no allegation or evidence that forgery was committed after the letter was filed in court. On merits, no prima facie case of forgery or fraud is made out against the accused; there is no material to show involvement of Respondent No.2 in the alleged forgery, as concluded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Court, and High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No infirmity found in the High Court or Revisional Court orders
  • No further investigation or cognizance to be taken against Respondent No.2