Economic Transport Organisation v. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd, 2010 (2) Scale 427

Supreme Court observed about the construction of document “In this context, it is necessary to remember that the nature of examination of a document may differ with reference to the context in which it is examined. If a document is examined to find out whether adequate stamp duty has been paid under the Stamp Act, it will not be necessary to examine whether it is validly executed or whether it is fraudulent or forged. On the other hand, if a document is being examined in a criminal case in the context of whether an offense of forgery has been committed, the question for examination will be whether it is forged or fraudulent, and the issue of stamp duty or registration will be irrelevant. But if the document is sought to be produced and relied upon in a civil suit, in addition to the question whether it is genuine, or forged, the question whether it is compulsorily registrable or not, and the question whether it bears the proper stamp duty, will become relevant. If the document is examined in the context of a dispute between the parties to the document, the nature of examination will be to find out that rights and obligation of one party vis-à-vis the other party. If in a summary proceedings by a consumer against a service provider, the insurer is added as a co-complainant or if the insurer represents the consumer as a power of attorney, there is no need to examine the nature of rights inter-se between the consumer and his insurer.”

Nakul Kohli Vs State of GNCT, Delhi High Court on 09.07.2010

Charge can be framed on the basis of fhotocopy of a forged document...
Photocopying a document, which is not genuine and with the kind of technology that is available now, wherein exactly similar copies of the original can be made, would fall within the ambit of making a false document. With the advent of technology, scanners and computerized colour photocopiers produce identical copies which are exactly similar to the original. Excluding photocopying/printing from the ambit of a “false document” would be giving too narrow a reading to the word `makes‟ as used in Section 464 First (a)becouse said word is not limited by the subsequent words signs, seals or executes. If the word `makes‟ was to confine to signing or executing, then there was no need of introducing this word in the said Section. It is settled law that the words used in an enactment are not superfluous.
Hon'ble Delhi high court further observed,"The contention of the learned counsel that he should be discharged at this stage for offences under Section 471 and 474 IPC as the document is a photocopy and thus a secondary evidence, is also untenable, because in a given case where a photocopy is used as the primary offending article, the same would be the primary evidence for the purpose of trial of the said case. Moreover, as to how a document is to be proved, whether by way of primary or secondary evidence is not required to be considered at the stage of framing of charge."