Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. To convict an accused for the offence under Section 468, IPC, the commission of an act of forgery is a condition precedent. The term 'forgery' used in Section 468, IPC is defined in Section 463, IPC and as per Section 463 of the Penal Code, whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits 'forgery'. Section 465, IPC has provided for punishment for the offence of forgery simpliciter.

Explanation 3.- For the purposes of this section, the expression "affixing electronic signature" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

17. From the above definitions, it is clear that the sine qua non for an offence under Section 468, IPC is forgery, which has been defined in Section 463, IPC. In respect of the offence under Section 468, IPC, forgery is the principal offence with cheating being a consequential offence. If forgery goes, cheating also goes. The sine qua non for the offence of forgery is making of a false document. When a person can be said to have made a false document is delineated in Section 464, IPC. To hold that a person has made a false document or a part thereof it is to be proved that the person concerned has made, signed, sealed or executed the document or a part of the document, which is to be made dishonestly or fraudulently with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or the part of the document was inter alia made, signed, sealed or executed by a person by whom he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed. Leaving aside the other essential ingredients, it can be said that one of the ingredients for making of a false document which is sine qua non for the offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC which is punishable under Section 465, IPC which, in turn, is part of the major offence under Section 468, IPC is that the false document or a part of the false document was either made or signed or sealed or executed by the accused person and the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in the following manner :-

"19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e. making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete."

22. The finding of guilty arrived at by the learned trial court is found unsustainable on a number of grounds. The learned trial court had observed that there was no iota of evidence regarding any dishonest inducement by the accused on the informant and the informant was not even aware of the submission of the alleged no objection letter by the accused in the name of the informant. By observing so, the learned trial court had acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 420, IPC. Dishonest inducement is an essential element in respect of both the offences under Section 415, IPC as well as Section 420, IPC. If there was no dishonest inducement on the part of the accused in connection with the alleged no objection letter then there was no offence of cheating. If the offence of cheating was not committed, there could not have been any conviction under Section 468, IPC [Forgery for the purpose of cheating] and in the absence of any element of dishonest inducement, meaning thereby, absence of cheating the accused ought to have been convicted for the offence of forgery simpliciter, provided the other essential ingredients for the offence of forgery are satisfied.