INTRODUCTION
In CBI v. Shivaji Yadav [Case No. CBI/20/2021] (Judgment dated 30 March
2026), delivered by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rouse
Avenue Courts, New Delhi, the Court examined the true scope of the offence of
forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The Judgment ultimately resulted in the
conviction of the Accused under Sections 465 and 471 IPC, while clarifying that
forgery is not confined merely to imitation of signatures but extends to fabrication of
any part of a document intended to deceive.
BRIEF FACTS
The case arose from a Letter dated 10 June 2019, purportedly issued under the
signatures of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and addressed to the Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, recommending the Accused for a political ticket. The Letter was
received at the Prime Minister’s Office, which raised suspicion regarding its
authenticity. Upon investigation, it was discovered that although the dispatch number
on the letter corresponded to a genuine communication from the Chief Minister’s
Office, the actual original letter had been addressed to a different authority. The
questioned letter was neither recorded in official registers nor issued from the
competent office, thereby indicating fabrication.
The investigation further revealed links between the Accused and the dispatch of the
letter, including the use of his mobile numbers and his presence at the location from
where the letter was sent. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a Charge-sheet
and the matter proceeded to trial on charges of forgery and use of forged document.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Court was primarily concerned with determining whether the document in
question was forged, whether forgery could be established in the absence of
conclusive proof regarding the signature and whether the act of sending the letter
amounted to using a forged document as genuine.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the concept of forgery under
Section 463 IPC and clarified that the offence is not limited to the act of signing
another person’s name. It held that making a false document includes fabrication of
any material part of a document, such as its contents, date or official identifiers, if
done with intent to deceive. In this context, the Court rejected the Defence argument
that failure to attribute the questioned signature to the Accused was fatal to the
Prosecution’s case. It observed that the essence of forgery lies in the creation of a
false document and not merely in the act of signing.
The Court relied on expert evidence, particularly the CFSL Report, which established
that several portions of the document, including the date, serial number and writings
on the envelope, matched the handwriting of the Accused. Although the Expert could
not conclusively attribute the signature, the Court emphasised that such absence
does not negate the cumulative evidentiary value of other findings. The Court further
held that expert opinion must be read in totality and cannot be selectively relied upon
to create doubt.
In addition to expert evidence, the Court placed considerable reliance on
circumstantial evidence. The linkage of the Accused’s mobile numbers with the
letter, the tower location corresponding with the place and time of dispatch and the
identification of handwriting by witnesses collectively formed a coherent chain
pointing towards the guilt of the Accused. The Court found that these circumstances
were consistent and excluded any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the
Accused’s involvement.
On the question of use of a forged document, the Court held that the very act of
dispatching the letter to the Prime Minister’s Office constituted use of the document
as genuine. It further observed that once it is established that the Accused himself
fabricated the document; knowledge of its falsity is inherent. The intention to derive
political benefit by presenting the forged letter as authentic further reinforced the
culpability under Section 471 IPC.
The Court also dealt with the argument that Yogi Adityanath was not examined as a
witness. Rejecting this contention, it held that the authenticity of the document could
be sufficiently disproved through official records, dispatch registers and testimony of
competent officials. The law does not mandate examination of a particular witness
when the available evidence adequately establishes the relevant facts.
CONCLUSION
The Judgment stands as an important exposition of the law of forgery, emphasising
that the offence must be understood in substance rather than in a narrow technical
sense. By holding that fabrication of any essential part of a document is sufficient to
constitute forgery, the Court has reinforced a broader and more realistic
interpretation of the law.
The ruling also highlights the growing importance of circumstantial and expert
evidence in document-based offences, especially in cases where direct evidence
may be limited. Ultimately, the decision underscores that the integrity of official
documentation is central to public trust and any attempt to manipulate such records
for personal gain will attract strict penal consequences.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about
various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Can AI replace an advocate’s
job? || Artificial Intelligence in Legal Profession” can be viewed at the link below: