Absence Of Original Document Not Fatal To Prosecution In Forgery Cases: Supreme Court

"Absence of the original document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated September 22, 2026, held that the non-production of an original document during the framing of charge stage does not ipso facto entitle an accused to a discharge, as the prosecution may establish the offence of forgery through other circumstantial evidence.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the existence of a prima facie case can be determined from the material on record without the mandatory production of the alleged forged original.

The dispute arose between neighbours over a property construction project, where the informant alleged that the accused had relied upon a forged and interpolated building plan. Following a police investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate subsequently found sufficient material to frame charges. After multiple rounds of litigation wherein the accused challenged these proceedings before the High Court, the High Court eventually granted discharge, reasoning that the absence of the original plan rendered the case against the accused unsustainable.

The central question before the Court was whether the absence of the original document allegedly forged by the accused precludes the framing of charges under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC. The Court also addressed whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, was justified in re-appreciating evidence to discharge the accused despite a previous Division Bench order declining to interfere with the trial.

Reiteration of Issue Estoppel

The bench emphasized that the High Court erred by re-adjudicating an issue that had attained finality in a previous round of litigation. Citing the principle of issue estoppel, the Court noted that once a competent court has directly raised and determined a specific issue of fact between parties, the same contention cannot be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.

"The principle of 'issue estoppel' would apply as a ground of challenge raised earlier but was unsuccessful was sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party."

No Absolute Requirement For Original Document

Addressing the merits, the Court clarified that the absence of the original document does not automatically collapse the prosecution’s case. Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Rama Shanker Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P., the Court reiterated that forgery can be proven through other evidence, provided that such evidence excludes all reasonable doubt.

"We do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt."

Scope of Section 227 of the Code

The Court cautioned that at the stage of framing charges under Section 227 of the Code, the court is not required to engage in a roving inquiry or sift through evidence to separate the "grain from the chaff." It is sufficient if the material on record raises a grave suspicion against the accused.

"It would be sufficient if a grave suspicion is raised against the accused on the basis of such material so as to sustain a trial."

Production of Documents Subsequent to Chargesheet

Relying on the precedent set in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pai and Another, the Court observed that Section 173 of the Code does not explicitly prohibit the production of additional documents after the filing of a chargesheet. Therefore, the prosecution is not precluded from introducing further evidence during the trial, and the absence of a document at the initial stage is not a ground for quashing the prosecution.

"Absence of the original document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case. It is only after evaluating the entire prosecution material that a finding would be required to be recorded as to whether the charge of forgery has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

The Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in exercising its jurisdiction to discharge the accused. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the proceedings before the Magistrate were restored, with a direction to expedite the trial given the age of the complaint.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026