Court holds absence of mens rea bars criminal prosecution where purchaser acted bona fide on documents later found forged
The Supreme Court has held that a property purchaser cannot face criminal prosecution merely because a transaction relied on a will that later turns out to be forged.
The Court said criminal liability requires specific evidence. The prosecution must show that the purchaser knew about the forgery or took part in it.
The case arose from criminal proceedings against a property purchaser.
The complainant alleged that the accused acquired the property through a forged will. He also claimed that the purchaser joined a conspiracy to fabricate documents and secure ownership unlawfully.
The purchaser denied the allegations. He maintained that he acted bona fide and relied on documents that appeared valid at the time of purchase.
Counsel for the purchaser argued that the allegations did not satisfy the basic ingredients of cheating or forgery.
He submitted that the record contained no material to show that the purchaser knew about the alleged forged will.
He further argued that a defective title, discovered later, cannot automatically create criminal liability.
The respondent opposed the plea.
According to the respondent, the transaction formed part of a larger fraudulent scheme.
The respondent also argued that the purchaser should have exercised greater due diligence before buying the property.
On that basis, the respondent sought continuation of the criminal proceedings
The Supreme Court examined the legal requirements for offences involving cheating and forgery.
It observed that criminal culpability requires mens rea, or guilty intention.
The Court said a purchaser who relies on facially valid documents cannot automatically face a presumption of knowledge.
Therefore, the prosecution must produce specific evidence linking the purchaser to the alleged forgery.
The Court emphasised that a civil dispute over title or document validity cannot automatically become a criminal case.
It said mere involvement in a transaction based on a document later found forged does not prove criminal intent.
Nor does it prove participation in the alleged forgery.
The Court also noted that such prosecutions may misuse criminal law for settling civil disputes.
The Supreme Court held that the allegations did not disclose a prima facie criminal offence against the purchaser.
Accordingly, it set aside the criminal proceedings against the appellant purchaser.
The Court clarified that parties may pursue appropriate civil remedies concerning title and ownership.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal courts cannot proceed against bona fide purchasers without evidence of knowledge or complicity.
A purchaser cannot face criminal liability only because a property transaction later comes under challenge on the ground of a forged document.
