Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The complainant further stated that the accused Nos.2 to 9, being the Chairman and Managing Director and Directors, are in charge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of the business of the first accused company. Hence, they are responsible for the perpetration of http://www.judis.nic.in fraud. The acts of the accused clearly tantamount to forgery, forgery of a public record, forgery of a valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged document as genuine one, containing false statements, dishonest and fraudulent removal and concealment of properties and other allied offences. The accused persons have thereby enjoyed wrongful gain putting the complainant to a wrongful loss. The impugned sale deed has been grossly under valued. The sale consideration in the sale deed is shown as Rs.1,58,000/- for the entire extent of 2.67 acres. This would also be a piece of incriminating circumstance to show that all the accused had colluded together by purportedly showing a lesser value in the impugned sale deed to perpetrate the offences mentioned above.

23. In Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 of IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document. Further, after analysing Section 464 of IPC, in para Nos:10 and 11 it has observed as follows:-

26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together.

'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial Court as well as appellate Court misguide themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same.”