Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16629 and 19557 of 2018 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.

22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16629 and 19557 of 2018 defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.

26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16629 and 19557 of 2018 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 misguided 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."

7. It is clear from the above judgments that in order to constitute the offence of creation of false documents, it must be established that the accused persons had made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or he was authorized by someone else (in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16629 and 19557 of 2018 short impersonation) or he altered or tampered with a document (forgery) or he obtained the document by practicing deception, or from a person, who is not in a control of his senses.