STATE OF KARNATAKA versus HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR.

STATE OF KARNATAKA versus HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY AND ANR.

Where a prosecution is for forgery of a document and such document was not produced in any court proceeding at any stage, Section 195(1)(b) CrPC does not bar a private complaint, and conviction for forgery under Section 467 read with 114 IPC can be legally sustained on a private individual's complaint.

Parties
Appellant: State of Karnataka; Respondent No. 1: Hemareddy alias Vemareddy; Respondent No. 2: Pyatal Bhimakka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 1981
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From Karnataka High Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; conviction and sentence of Respondent No. 1 (Hemareddy alias Vemareddy) under Section 467 read with 114 IPC restored; acquittal under Section 193 IPC confirmed; modification of sentence for Respondent No. 2 (Pyatal Bhimakka) upheld.
Legal Topics
Forgery, Abetment, Procedure Under Cr PC Section 195, Cognizance of Offences, Redemption of Mortgage, Conspiracy to Cheat
Criminal Law Forgery Abetment Procedure Under Cr PC Section 195 Cognizance of Offences Redemption of Mortgage Conspiracy to Cheat

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Karnataka

Appellant

Hemareddy alias Vemareddy

Respondent No. 1

Pyatal Bhimakka

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From Karnataka High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution for forgery (Section 467 IPC) and related offences was maintainable without a court complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC when the forged document was not produced at any stage in court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under Section 467 read with 114 and Section 193 IPC was correct under law
  3. 3 Appropriate scope of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC regarding the necessity of court complaint

Ratio Decidendi

Where a prosecution is for forgery of a document and such document was not produced in any court proceeding at any stage, Section 195(1)(b) CrPC does not bar a private complaint, and conviction for forgery under Section 467 read with 114 IPC can be legally sustained on a private individual's complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; conviction and sentence of Respondent No. 1 (Hemareddy alias Vemareddy) under Section 467 read with 114 IPC restored; acquittal under Section 193 IPC confirmed; modification of sentence for Respondent No. 2 (Pyatal Bhimakka) upheld.

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 (Hemareddy alias Vemareddy) convicted under Section 467 read with 114 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
  • Decision of High Court acquitting respondent under Section 193 IPC confirmed.