The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had discharged an accused in a forgery and cheating case, holding that the non-production of the original document allegedly forged, by itself, cannot be a ground to quash the entire prosecution.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment in Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza & Ors., 2026 INSC 1032.
The case arose from an allegation that the accused had relied upon an interpolated and forged copy of an approved building plan in connection with construction undertaken in Goa. An FIR was registered in 2012 under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Magistrate, after considering the material collected during investigation, had found prima facie material to frame charges against the accused. The Sessions Court subsequently upheld that order.
However, in a subsequent writ petition, the Bombay High Court at Goa held that the original plan had not been produced and that the basic documents on which the prosecution case rested were missing. It consequently set aside the orders framing charges and discharged the accused.
The Supreme Court noted that the accused had earlier challenged the FIR and chargesheet before the High Court on substantially the same ground—that the original plan had not been produced.
That challenge had already been rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court on October 31, 2023, which found that the material accompanying the chargesheet was prima facie sufficient to frame charges. The accused had not challenged that decision further.
The Supreme Court held that a fresh attempt to raise the same challenge was barred by the principle of issue estoppel.
The Court observed that an issue already considered and rejected in earlier proceedings between the same parties could not simply be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.
On the substantive issue, the Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Rama Shanker Lal v. State of U.P., observing that the absence of the original document allegedly forged does not automatically make prosecution for forgery impossible.
The Court clarified that while production of the original document may be a significant factor, other evidence can potentially establish the offence. Where the original is unavailable, however, the prosecution would have to establish the charge through other evidence to the required standard.
The Bench therefore held:
“Absence of the original document relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution.”
The Court also referred to its decision in CBI v. R.S. Pai, holding that the investigating agency is not necessarily precluded from producing additional documents subsequently, with the permission of the Court, where relevant material was not filed along with the chargesheet.
The Bench further emphasised that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed assessment of the evidence to determine whether it would ultimately result in conviction.
Referring to K.H. Kamaladini v. State, the Court noted that if the material raises a grave suspicion against the accused, the trial should ordinarily proceed rather than the Court undertaking a detailed evaluation of the evidence at the threshold.
The Court ultimately set aside the Bombay High Court's August 28, 2024 judgment, restored the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law.
Since the complaint dates back to 2012, the Supreme Court directed that the proceedings before the Magistrate be expedited. The Court clarified that all contentions of the parties remain open for consideration at trial.
Case: Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1032
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment Date: September 22, 2026
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Vrinda Grover,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
For Respondent(s): Respondent-in-person Mr. Akshai Malik, Adv. Mr. Khawar Saleem, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy