Supreme Court: Failure to Produce Original Deed in Forgery Case Is Not Enough to Discharge Accused
The Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot be discharged from a forgery prosecution merely because the prosecution failed to produce the original allegedly forged document along with the charge sheet. The ruling makes clear that the absence of the original document at the pre-trial stage does not, by itself, justify terminating the criminal proceedings.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling on September 22, 2026. The Court set aside an order of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had reversed a Magistrate’s refusal to discharge the accused in a case involving an allegedly forged sale deed.
The case is Antonetto J. D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others, reported by LiveLaw as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 973. The dispute required the Supreme Court to consider whether non-production of the original sale deed at the charge-sheet stage was sufficient to bring the prosecution to an end before trial.
The Supreme Court concluded that it was not. According to the Court, the absence of the original document is an issue that can be examined during trial rather than being treated automatically as a ground for quashing the prosecution.
Importantly, the Court observed that forgery may also be established through circumstantial evidence. This means that the prosecution must be given an opportunity at trial to attempt to prove its allegations using legally admissible evidence, even where the original document relied upon in the forgery allegation is unavailable at the pre-trial stage.
The Supreme Court further noted that filing of the charge sheet does not necessarily close the door on additional documentary evidence. A document that was not submitted along with the charge sheet may, subject to the applicable procedural and evidentiary rules, subsequently be produced during the proceedings.
The ruling therefore draws an important distinction between the threshold for continuing a prosecution and the prosecution’s ultimate burden of proving guilt. Whether the absence of the original deed weakens or defeats the forgery allegation is a matter that can be assessed on the evidence at trial; it does not automatically entitle the accused to discharge before that evidence is tested.
By restoring the Magistrate’s refusal to discharge the accused, the Supreme Court effectively allowed the prosecution to proceed and attempt to establish the alleged forgery. The ruling does not mean that an original document is irrelevant to proving forgery; rather, it holds that its non-production at the charge-sheet stage cannot alone extinguish the prosecution.
The decision could have broader significance for document-forgery prosecutions where an original instrument is missing, unavailable or was not initially filed by investigators. It reinforces that questions concerning the evidentiary impact of a missing original ordinarily need to be assessed in the course of trial instead of being used, by themselves, to terminate proceedings at the discharge stage.
The judgment thus preserves the prosecution’s opportunity to prove its case while leaving the ultimate questions—whether forgery actually occurred, whether the available evidence is admissible and sufficient, and whether the accused is guilty—to be determined through the criminal trial process.
