Skip to content


Venkaraju Venkatasami and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.176
AppellantVenkaraju Venkatasami and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....principle behind this prescription under section 300 of cr.p.c. is to avoid double jeopardy to a person. if the code recognizes such a distinction, it may make inroads into this concept of double jeopardy. but the concept of double jeopardy, to some extent, is allergic to service law. in many cases the supreme court has made it clear - (i) that the imposition of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy, and (ii) that the conviction by a criminal court and the disciplinary proceedings initiated either on the basis of conduct which let to the conviction or on pure questions of misconduct, did not amount to double jeopardy. since the concept of acquittal is an acquittal, is an off shoot of the principle of double jeopardy underlying section 300(1) of the..........bond with names which were not their own, and have been convicted under section 465 of the indian penal code of forgery by making a false document. we do not think the conviction can stand under section 464 of the indian penal code. a person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was signed by a person by whom he knows it was not signed. now in this case, the accused had before signing said to the sub-magistrate that their names were the names they after wards signed to the bail bond. there could, therefore, be no intention to cause the sab-magistrate to believe that the bail bond was signed by any person real or fictitious other than the accused.2. we, therefore, set aside the conviction,.....
Judgment:

1. The two accused in this case signed a bail bond with names which were not their own, and have been convicted under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code of forgery by making a false document. We do not think the conviction can stand under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was signed by a person by whom he knows it was not signed. Now in this case, the accused had before signing said to the Sub-Magistrate that their names were the names they after wards signed to the bail bond. There could, therefore, be no intention to cause the Sab-Magistrate to believe that the bail bond was signed by any person real or fictitious other than the accused.

2. We, therefore, set aside the conviction, acquit the accused of forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and direct their immediate release.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //