A Missing Original Document Does Not Mean Discharge: Antonetto J D'Souza v Aldila Braganza
Date Published
On 22 September 2026, the Supreme Court restored a criminal trial that the High Court had ended at the discharge stage. The case is Antonetto J D'Souza v Aldila Braganza, decided by Atul S. Chandurkar and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Two short rules come out of it. A forgery case does not collapse just because the prosecution has not recovered the original document. And an accused cannot return to the High Court a second time with the same discharge argument that has already been rejected. Both points are regularly useful in the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam.
A neighbours' dispute in Goa
The appellant, Antonetto J D'Souza, is the informant and a neighbour of the accused, Aldila Braganza. The accused and her father-in-law had built a structure under a licence dated 13 April 1971, issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council. The informant said the structure was illegal. He alleged that a copy of the original approved plan, drawn by an architect named in the report, had been interpolated and forged, and then used to support the construction.
How the case moved through the courts
· 2012: The informant made a report at Calangute Police Station on 5 July. An FIR was registered on 18 July under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC read with Section 34.
· Trial court stage: After investigation, a final report was filed. The Judicial Magistrate First Class found prima facie material to frame charge.
· Revision: The accused filed a revision under Section 397 CrPC. The Sessions Court dismissed it.
· First writ petition: While the revision was going on, the accused filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa against the FIR and chargesheet. A Division Bench declined to interfere with the charge order and dismissed it on 31 October 2023.
· Abatement: The father-in-law died during these proceedings, and the case abated against him.
· Second writ petition: The accused filed another petition on the same point, that the original plan was not on record. A Single Judge accepted it, set aside the charge order and the Sessions Court order and discharged her.
· 22 September 2026: The Supreme Court restored the trial.
Read Blog: Article 22 Breach: Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol Case
Question one: is a missing original fatal?
The accused's argument was that without the original approved plan, there was nothing to compare the allegedly forged copy with, so there should be no trial. The Supreme Court did not accept that.
It held that the absence of the original does not automatically entitle the accused to discharge. Forgery can be proved through circumstantial and other evidence, subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt at trial. The Court relied on Rama Shanker Lal v State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 905, a three-judge bench decision, for the point that the absence of the original alleged forgery does not by itself end the prosecution.
What a court does at the charge stage
The Court recalled the limited task of the court under Section 227 CrPC. The court does not weigh the evidence as if it were conducting a trial. It is enough if the material discloses grave suspicion that is sufficient to sustain a trial. Questions of proof come later.
Documents found during investigation
The Court also dealt with additional documents gathered during investigation. These can be produced after the chargesheet is filed, with the court's permission. The Court relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v R.S. Pai, 2002 INSC 178. It added that the word shall in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory, not mandatory.
Question two: can the same ground be raised again?
This is the more interesting legal point. The Division Bench had already declined to interfere with the charge order on 31 October 2023. The accused later raised the same contention before a Single Judge in a second writ petition. The Single Judge accepted it without considering that earlier decision.
The Supreme Court held that issue estoppel applies in criminal proceedings. A party cannot re-argue a point that has already been considered and rejected by a Division Bench between the same parties. The earlier order was binding. The accused could not succeed on the same ground without first challenging the 2023 order.
The Court cited Piara Singh v State of Punjab, 1969 INSC 3, a three-judge bench decision. It is cited for the rule that issue estoppel bars the court from receiving evidence to disturb a finding of fact in a later trial, even for a different offence.
A small point for careful readers: the report's opening line speaks of successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC, while the body describes criminal writ petitions. The report does not reconcile the two. When you cite the case, use the full judgment to see how the Court described the petitions.
Result
The Supreme Court set aside the Single Judge's order, which had discharged the accused, and restored the trial proceedings. The report mentions no further directions.
Turning the case into exam answers
For a question on discharge and framing of charge, begin with Section 227 CrPC and say the test is grave suspicion, not proof. Add that missing original documents do not end a forgery case, citing this case together with Rama Shanker Lal.
For a question on repeat petitions, write that issue estoppel applies in criminal proceedings and name Piara Singh. For a short note on Section 173(5), remember that the word shall is directory and that extra documents can be produced with permission.
As a trial judge, this shows the right approach at the charge stage. You must not hold a mini trial. You decide whether the material makes out a case that deserves a full trial.
Questions on Antonetto J D'Souza v Aldila Braganza
Which court decided the case, and when?
The Supreme Court of India, on 22 September 2026, by a bench of Atul S. Chandurkar and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
What offences were alleged?
Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC read with Section 34, concerning an allegedly forged copy of a building plan.
Why did the High Court discharge the accused?
Because the original approved plan was not on record, a point it treated as fatal.
Is the original of a forged document always needed?
No. The Supreme Court held that its absence does not automatically entitle the accused to discharge, and forgery can be proved by circumstantial and other evidence.
What is the test at the Section 227 CrPC stage?
Whether the material discloses grave suspicion sufficient to sustain a trial. The court does not weigh evidence as at trial.
What is issue estoppel, as applied here?
A party cannot re-argue a point already considered and rejected by a Division Bench between the same parties.
What did the Court say about Section 173(5) CrPC?
That the word shall is directory, and additional documents gathered during investigation can be produced after the chargesheet with the court's permission.
Which earlier cases did the Court cite?
Piara Singh v State of Punjab (1969 INSC 3), Rama Shanker Lal v State of U.P. ((1971) 3 SCC 905) and Central Bureau of Investigation v R.S. Pai (2002 INSC 178).
What happened to the father-in-law?
He died during the proceedings, and the case abated against him.
What was the final result?
The Single Judge's order discharging the accused was set aside and the trial was restored.
Takeaway on Discharge and Repeat Petitions
Antonetto J D'Souza v Aldila Braganza gives two clear lines for your notes: a missing original document is not a ground for discharge in a forgery case, and a rejected ground cannot be brought back in a second petition because of issue estoppel.
Nitesh Sir and the Aashayein Judiciary faculty turn new Supreme Court rulings into simple Judiciary Notes, PYQ-style questions and Mock Tests for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam. For guided Judiciary Coaching, Online Judiciary Coaching and updated Judiciary Study Material, join Aashayein Judiciary today.