Use of forged documents before court cannot be viewed lightly: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said offences involving forgery and the use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are serious in nature and cannot be viewed lightly.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria observed while modifying the sentence of five years given to a man for using a forged revenue document for furnishing surety in judicial proceedings.

“There can be no manner of doubt that offences involving forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are serious in nature. Sections 467 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for cheating) and 471 (using a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code deal with the offences which undermine the authenticity and sanctity attached to public and legal documents. Use of forged documents before a Court of law cannot be viewed lightly,” the bench said.

The top court said while considering the question of sentence, the court is required to balance the nature of the offence with the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the role attributed to the accused, the period of incarceration undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing jurisprudence. “The principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process. Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender,” the bench said.

The apex court said in this case, the occurrence pertained to the year 2014, and the man has remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade. “No material has been placed before this Court indicating that the appellant is a habitual offender or that he was involved in similar criminal activity either before or after the present occurrence,” it said.

The top court said the present case is not one involving organised criminal activity, large-scale economic fraud, systematic forgery affecting public institutions or recurring acts of deception causing widespread financial loss.

“While the offence cannot be treated lightly, sentencing must ultimately remain proportionate to the overall factual matrix and the degree of criminality reflected in the case,” the bench said, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

The man had undergone over two years of incarceration in the case.