Original document
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
Mr. A conspires with B&C to create a false document. By presenting a photocopy of this document in an injunction suit, Mr. A grabs buisiness of D. Mr. A is working partner in business with D. D files a criminal complaint u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
A manages police. Police files challan u/s 406 and 420 only ag A. D files appl u/s 190 for cogn u/s 467, 468 & 471 also. Court drops 406 but takes cogn u/s 467, 468 & 471 also and joins B & C also as accused on the basis of evidences. Revision by B rejected. Charges framed. Revision rejected. Petition u/s 482 also rejected by high court. although the process took 9 years. Evidences started. The original document is still in possession of accused. What are consequences of original document not present in court ?
Guest
(Expert) 19 November 2011
It is the fault of D and D's advocate, who have not insisted during trial to produce the original document for examination and verification and taking appropriate order of the court on that document.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 19 November 2011
rightly stated.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Well explained by Dhingra
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 November 2011
Thanks for your responses.
1. Trial has started only now when the first evidence of main witness started. Question has arisen only now. How the lacuna can be rectified?
2. Question is that the accused has claimed the existence of the document in a court of law. He has taken an order on the basis of this and taken possession of the business. He has pleaded on this basis in other suits and before the arbitrator. Does it not prove that he has taken advantage of a false document.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 November 2011
Punascha:
Can A be held guilty of destroying the evidence?
A has taken plea of non-availability of document as an argument that charges can not be framed. His argument rejected by trial court, by revision court and by High Court.
Guest
(Expert) 20 November 2011
Non-availability of the document, based on which A grabbed business of D, itself would prove forgery and fraud on the part of A by manipulating some photocopy or willfully destroying the original document just with the intention to conceal facts from the court. Definitely A can be held guilty in that case.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 21 November 2011
Thanks Mr. Dhingra, Mr. Barman.
I shall further appreciate to get some rulings where indictment have been successfully obtained where existence of document has been proved but the original is not available.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 21 November 2011
yes, i do agree experts query reply
