Andhra Pradesh High Court: Attesting Witness Not Criminally Liable for Fraudulent Document Without Specific Role
Legal News | 21 August 2026
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because he signed an allegedly fraudulent document as an attesting witness, in the absence of specific material showing knowledge of the fraud or participation in the alleged criminal transaction.
The ruling came in Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., arising from criminal proceedings in which the petitioners were arrayed as Accused Nos. 8 and 9.
Allegation limited to attestation
The prosecution alleged offences including criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and use of a forged document. The case against the petitioners, however, was substantially confined to the allegation that they had attested the disputed document.
Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela noted that neither the complaint nor the charge-sheet attributed a specific act showing that the petitioners knew the document was false, participated in its preparation, shared the alleged fraudulent intention or benefited from the transaction.
Attestation is not proof of complicity
The High Court reiterated that an attesting witness ordinarily certifies execution or signature; attestation by itself does not establish knowledge of every recital or prove participation in the underlying transaction. Criminal liability must rest on material disclosing the ingredients of the particular offence alleged.
Finding the allegations against the petitioners to be bald and omnibus, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would not be justified and quashed the proceedings against them.
Practical significance
The decision is important in property and document-fraud prosecutions where witnesses, scribes, notaries, identifying witnesses and other peripheral participants are sometimes arrayed as accused without a clearly pleaded role. The ruling does not create immunity for an attesting witness who knowingly participates in fraud; rather, it requires the prosecution to show specific material connecting that person with the criminal intent or act.
Case: Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 9878 of 2022.
This report is based on the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling reported on 21 August 2026 and is intended for legal information.