In the case of John Doe v. [Respondent], John Doe emerged victorious as the court overturned the previous decision against him. The legal battle centered around allegations of forgery and use of an imposter by John Doe in a land sale transaction. Despite the respondent’s attempts, John Doe’s case was found to be meritorious based on the evidence presented, leading to a favorable outcome for him.
Facts
- Respondent lodged FIR No. 160 of 1989 alleging forgery of general power of attorney by the appellant.
- Appellant was acquitted in the trial related to the FIR as the charge could not be proven.
- Counsel for respondent does not dispute the acquittal.
- The appellant sold lands of the respondent in a similar manner even before.
- Appellant filed for discharge referring to his earlier acquittal under Section 419 or 420 Cr.P.C.
- The respondent then filed Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 to cancel the general power of attorney.
- The revision against the dismissal was rejected.
- Grounds raised by the appellant were deemed more suitable for the time of framing of charges.
- Judicial Magistrate Class II Gonda declined the discharge application as the acquittal order was not presented.
Also Read: Expanding the Notional Extension Theory: A Legal Analysis
Arguments
- The appellant’s senior counsel argued that being tried for the same offense twice goes against Section 300 Cr.P.C.
- The appellant believes the second FIR filed in 2008, years after the general power of attorney was executed in 1985, is an abuse of the legal process and should be quashed.
- The respondent’s counsel argued that the ingredients of the two FIRs were different, justifying the filing of the subsequent FIR in 2008.
- Appellant allegedly put up an imposter in place of the respondent before registration authorities.
- Collusively executed a sale deed in respect of his lands with others in pursuance of a general power of attorney not executed by the respondent.
- Discharge application rightly rejected and interference declined in revision.
Also Read: Analysis of Intent in Fatal Assault Case
Analysis
- The respondent denied executing any general power of attorney in favor of the appellant.
- The appellant was acquitted of the charges by judgment dated 07.08.1998.
- Allegations suggest the appellant used an imposter to sell the respondent’s lands based on a forged general power of attorney.
- FIR No. 160 of 1989 mentions the respondent’s frequent absence due to his job.
- The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 to cancel the general power of attorney after the appellant’s acquittal.
- The filing of the civil suit can be seen as an acknowledgment of the authenticity of the general power of attorney by the respondent.
- An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent which led to the registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008.
- The lack of availability of the judgment does not affect the situation.
- The appellant allegedly created a forged general power of attorney in his name regarding the respondent’s lands and sold them based on it, leading to the respondent’s discovery of the forgery on 25.07.1989.
- The FIRs are based on the same general power of attorney and sales made by the appellant.
- The addition of Sections 467, 468, and 471 in the subsequent FIR does not change the common substratum.
- Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. prohibits trying a person again for the same offence or on the same facts post-acquittal.
- As the substratum of the two FIRs is the same and the appellant was acquitted earlier, the subsequent prosecution is unsustainable.
- The FIR dated 09.10.2008 and related orders are set aside.
Also Read: Assessment of Compensation in Disability Case
Decision
- The appeal is allowed in favor of John Doe.
- The decision made by the lower court is overturned.
- John Doe’s case is found to be meritorious based on the evidence presented.
- The relief sought by John Doe is granted.
Case Title: PREM CHAND SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2020 INSC 155)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000237-000237 / 2020
