May 1, 2019:
Supreme Court has observed that at the time of considering sanction, a Magistrate should not express any opinion that accused has committed forgery and he should avoid any conclusive opinion.
A bench of Justice Bhushan and Justice Joseph has passed the judgment in case titled S.K. MIGLANI vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 30.04.2019.
In a case in Delhi, the Magistrate made an observation as “From the FSL report, it is clear that accused S.K. Mighlani forged the signatures of Sh. Gautam Dhar on account opening form and moreover, the introducer Rajender Kr. is absconding. In view of this Court, an act of forgery done by public servant cannot be considered an act done in discharge of his official duties”.
Supreme Court however did not find the observation suitable. It observed “At the stage, when Court is considering the question regarding applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C., it was not necessary for the CMM to make observation that appellant has done an act of forgery. The FSL report was one of the evidences collected by I.O. Its evidentiary value was still to be gone into at the time of trial in the light of the evidences, which may come before the trial court”.
Supreme Court further observed “The observation made by CMM as extracted above, by giving opinion using the expression that appellant has committed forgery ought to have been avoided. The Magistrate, at any stage prior to final trial, is to avoid any conclusive opinion regarding any evidence collected during investigation. It is true that evidence collected in the investigation can be looked into to form an opinion as to whether prima facie charge is made out against an accused and what is the nature of offence alleged against him”.
Read the judgment here:
Picture Source :
