Can an accused escape a forgery trial because the original of the allegedly forged document cannot be produced? The Supreme Court has answered no. On 22 September 2026, a Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., in Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza, Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of 2026 (2026 INSC 1032), allowed an informant’s appeal against a discharge order in a case involving an allegedly interpolated municipal building plan, holding that “absence of the original document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case”, and restored the matter to the trial court.
A building plan and a long road
The dispute is a neighbourhood one with a municipal paper trail. Construction licence No. 20/72 issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council; a copy of the approved plan alleged to be interpolated; construction raised on its strength; an FIR of 2012 under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The trial court framed charges. The accused secured discharge in challenge proceedings — the centrepiece of the discharge being the absence of the original plan said to be forged. Fourteen years after the FIR, the Supreme Court has sent the case back to where the trial court left it.
The holding
No original, no automatic acquittal-by-discharge. The Court held that the absence of the original document alleged to be forged “by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case.” Documents disappear — sometimes by accident, sometimes by design — and the law of evidence has never made primary evidence the only road to proof.
Circumstantial proof is available. The prosecution may establish forgery through circumstantial evidence and the surrounding material: certified copies and municipal records, comparison of versions, testimony of officials who processed the documents, expert examination of the copies, and the conduct of the parties.
Charge-framing was justified. Measured against the prima facie standard, the trial court’s order framing charges deserved to stand; the discharge was set aside and the case restored to the trial court for proceeding with the trial.
Why the ruling matters
Document offences would become unprosecutable at will if the disappearance of the original ended the case — the person with the strongest motive to lose a forged original is its beneficiary. The decision aligns the discharge jurisprudence with the evidence framework: secondary evidence provisions (now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), public-record certification, and expert comparison all exist precisely for proof when originals are unavailable. Whether the circumstantial mosaic actually proves interpolation beyond reasonable doubt is a trial question; the Supreme Court’s point is institutional — that question belongs to the trial court after evidence, not to a discharge order before it.
For complainants in property-document disputes, the case is a reminder to build the municipal record early: certified copies of sanctioned plans, licence files and inward registers obtained through applications to the authority create the comparison set that survives any later disappearance of originals. For accused persons, it clarifies where the battle lies — discharge succeeds on legal impossibility or absence of grave suspicion, not on anticipated evidentiary difficulties of the prosecution.
Practice pointers
The takeaway
D’Souza restores a simple allocation of functions: the discharge stage filters legally groundless prosecutions, and the trial decides contested proof. A missing original makes a forgery case harder — it does not make it impossible, and it certainly does not make it dischargeable. The interpolated-plan allegation will now be tested where it always belonged: in evidence.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the allegations?
The appellant-informant, a neighbour, alleged that the accused and her father-in-law raised construction using a forged building plan: a construction licence had been obtained from the Mapusa Municipal Council, but the copy of the approved plan relied upon was said to be interpolated. An FIR of 18 July 2012 invoked Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC — forgery for the purpose of cheating, using a forged document as genuine, and cheating.
Why had the case been discharged?
The discharge rested substantially on the unavailability of the original allegedly forged document — the reasoning being that without the original, the forgery could not be proved. The trial court had framed charges; the discharge came in the superior court’s order under challenge before the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
That the prosecution is entitled to prove forgery through circumstantial evidence and the other material on record; the missing original is a matter for appreciation at trial, not a ground to terminate the prosecution at the threshold. Finding the charge-framing order justified on prima facie grounds, the Court set aside the discharge and restored the case for trial.
What is the standard at the charge-framing stage?
A prima facie standard: the judge considers whether the material discloses grave suspicion of the offence, without conducting a mini-trial or weighing evidence as at final adjudication. Defences that depend on evidentiary evaluation — including what the secondary evidence of a missing document ultimately proves — belong to the trial.