Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

367. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned.

368. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there was forgery with a particular intent.

369. Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown that an accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged.

373. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The questions are

(i) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused, and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.

374. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small.

375. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.

376. A false description makes a document of forgery when it is found that the accused by giving such false description intended to make out or wanted it to believe that it was not he that was executing the document but another person.

36. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it is clear that in the registered sale deeds, it was specifically mentioned that the land in dispute is not a Govt. lease land and the seller is the exclusive owner of the same. This declaration will bring the act of the seller within the purview of preparing false document and forgery because it was made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. Further, the seller was dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. As already pointed out, Ramsewak, Sarman Devi and Ramswaroop had no authority to sell the land and inspite of that it was purchased by the various persons, with a specific declaration that the land is not a Govt. leased land but in fact not only it was a Govt. land but lease had already expired in the year 1977. By preparing a false document with a clear declaration that the land in dispute is not a Govt. lease land and it belongs to the seller, a clear intention was to grab the Govt. land illegally. Thus, the only intention was to gain undue advantage by causing undue loss to the Government.