Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 14-01-2020 in case of petitioner name Padum Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh
| |

Forgery and Fraudulent Delivery in Postal Services: Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

The case of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the conviction of the appellant, a postman, who was accused of forging signatures and fraudulently delivering a registered letter containing financial securities. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Padum Kumar, was a postman at Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow. On April 9, 1992, Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3), a professor at the Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad, sent a registered envelope (Registry No. 0095) containing four Indira Vikas Patra (investment bonds) worth Rs. 20,000 to his brother, Dr. K.B. Varshney (PW-1).

However, the registered envelope never reached the recipient. Dr. K.B. Varshney lodged a complaint with the postal authorities on April 27, 1992. On May 14, 1992, an investigation revealed that the envelope had been delivered on April 13, 1992, and a person named ‘Mohan’ had signed the delivery slip. When Dr. Varshney’s son, Devesh Mohan (PW-2), examined the signature, he denied that it was his.

Legal Proceedings

A criminal case was registered against the appellant under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Ghazipur Police Station, Lucknow. The case was later transferred to the CID for further investigation. The appellant was charged with forgery and fraudulent delivery of postal items.

Arguments of the Appellant (Padum Kumar)

The appellant made the following arguments:

  • There was no direct evidence linking him to the forged signature.
  • The forensic report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, was in his favor and stated that the disputed signature matched the genuine signature of PW-2.
  • The prosecution’s reliance on a private handwriting expert should not override the government forensic report.
  • There was no concrete evidence proving that the appellant forged the signature himself.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The State of Uttar Pradesh countered with the following arguments:

  • The signature in the delivery slip did not match that of PW-2, as confirmed by multiple handwriting experts.
  • The appellant was responsible for handling deliveries, and he failed to explain how the letter was handed over to an unauthorized person.
  • The evidence presented by Dr. K.B. Varshney (PW-1), Devesh Mohan (PW-2), and Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3) corroborated the prosecution’s case.
  • The appellant’s familiarity with the recipient’s family made it easy for him to forge the signature.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the case based on the following considerations:

  • Whether the appellant was responsible for forging the signature.
  • Whether the forensic and handwriting expert reports were conclusive.
  • Whether the trial court and appellate courts rightly convicted the appellant.

After reviewing the case, the Court made the following findings:

  • The appellant was the only postman responsible for delivering the envelope.
  • Multiple handwriting experts confirmed that the disputed signature did not match PW-2’s actual signature.
  • The appellant had failed to explain who signed the delivery slip in PW-2’s name.
  • The prosecution’s evidence, including statements from key witnesses, proved that the appellant had forged the recipient’s signature.

Verbatim Court Findings

The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, stated:

“The duties of a postman require utmost integrity and responsibility. The appellant was in a position of trust and breached that trust by forging a delivery slip for financial gain.”

Additionally, the Court observed:

“The forensic report from the government lab was not proved by calling an expert witness. The private expert’s report, which contradicted the government report, was supported by the evidence of key prosecution witnesses and cannot be disregarded.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction but modified the sentence:

  • The conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC was affirmed.
  • The sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone due to the lapse of time since the offense (1992).
  • The appellant was ordered to be released immediately unless required in any other case.

Final Verdict: Conviction upheld, sentence modified.


Petitioner Name: Padum Kumar.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 14-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Padum Kumar vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Criminal Conspiracy
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts