Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there is no basis for A-4 having fabricated any Declaration Form or document. With regard to a document, which is alleged to have been forged, a person has to speak as to who has signed, committed the act of forgery. Further the document must have been examined by a Document Expert, he should have compared it with admitted documents and there should have been relevant materials with regard to fabrication of documents and the writings therein.

71. In respect of the allegations of attestation of declaration forms by A2, A7 and preparation of form 16 by A5, the same would not attract an offence of forgery. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs.State of Bihar and another (2009-8-SCC-751) in paragraphs 9 to 17 and 23 to 28 dealt with the ingredients of forgery and held that if a person executes a document without impersonating another person, then the said document could not be defined as false document and therefore, the ingredients of forgery is not attracted against the person who executed the document. It is held as follows:-
11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" used in these two Sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be 6 committed, commits forgery.
12. Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below :

15. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.