Search results
A complaint was lodged before the police and the same was closed as civil in nature. Therefore, the present private complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners for an alleged offences under Sections 420, 463, 464,468, 470 and 471 IPC and r/w. Section 120(b) IPC.
Union of India - Section Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.— Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de-scription for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nov 26, 2015 · Cited By: 16. Coram: 2. ...considered that the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and the maximum punishmentfor the offence under Section 467 IPC is 10 years and fi...even imprisonment for life as per Section 467 read with Section471IPC .8.
According to Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
State of Madras AIR 1968 Mad. 349, it was held by the Madras High court that using a forged passport as an authentic or genuine one in order to gain entry into India is punishable offence under section 471 of IPC. Making of Counterfeit Seal, Plate etc to Commit Forgery
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Sections 420/467/468/471/120B Of The ... vs In Re : Mohan Halder on 12 April, 2023. 12.04.2023 42 sdas allowed CRM(DB) No. 1460 of 2023 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Diamond Harbour Police Station Case No. 109 of 2022 dated 25.02.2022 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Apr 26, 2022 · As regards the plea that Section 471 IPC is not attracted, suffice it not note that the petitioner had submitted a document which on the face of it had falsities, to establish that he had the requisite experience. The Special Public Prosecutor has highlighted them before this Court, e.g., the partnership firm, in which the brother of the petitioner was a partner, came into existence only in 1995, so he could not have been employed with it in 1993; the record also establishes that in 1993 ...
