Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Even if the accused has made a part of the document, namely column 5 of Ex. 12 that part in fact was made or executed by the person by whom is purports to be executed, namely the accused and therefore accused cannot be said to have made a false document. Including in a document, certain false recitals or particulars is not forgery. The mere making of a false statement in a document would not come within Section 468 I.P.C. Code and would not amount to forgery. Here we are dealing with a receipt which the law does not require to be a tested. It is not necessary to consider in this case whether falsely attesting a document which the law requires to be a tested would amount to forgery.

9. Reliance is also placed on Rule v. Dodra and Harris (1971) 2 All ER 158 in which it has been held as under:

The way the matter is really put is this. Counsel for the appellant Dodge, who hag put his arguments very conclsively, says this, that any implication which one can infer from the document that the parties intended to implement it is a lie as to the intention of the parties, but is not a lie as to the document itself. It is a lie about something that is extrinsic. So in a very old case, R.V. Jones, a man called William Jones was , indicated for that he had in his custody a forged paper writing purporting to be a back note, and it was worded as follows: "I promise to pay John Wilson, Esq., or Bearer, Ten Pounds, and then it was dated London, March 4, 1976 For Self and Company of my Bank in England: signed 'John Jones", he was charged with forgery on the ground that this document was in effect a sham. He had no bank account which warranted his making out this note. But Lord Mans field C.J. ruled that although there may be false representation, there was no question here of forgery; it was not a forgery. The document did not tell a lie about itself.

29. Now we take up the offences under Sections 468 and 469 I.P.C. As regards she offences under Section 468 we may at the outset mention that no offence under this section is made out as the ingredients that the forged document shall be used for the purpose of cheating are totaliy lacking in the present case. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made wholly or in part by forgery. Making false document has been defined in s, 464 I.P.C. We are concerned with the first two clauses of Section 464 which are reproduced as under:

30. In Motisingh Gambhirsing's case AIR 1961 Guj. 117 (supra) Raju J, held that mere making of a false statement in a document would not come within Section 464 and would not amount to a forgery. That would amount to making a false statement and would not amount to making a false document.

31. In Rule v. Dodge and Harris (1971) 2 All ER 158 (supra) one Harris met and borrowed money from a man called Gold and in order to help Harris. One Dodge made a conspiracy with Harris in order to discourage Mr. Gou to pursue his writ for the money he had lent to Harris. In pursuance to this plan Harris made out two bonds, one for £ 7000 and one for £ 3000 purporting to be payable by Dodge to Harris. These document were quite properly executed by Dodge, but of course the statement made therein with regards to these sums were nature. At the trial a submission was made to the common sergeant that these two bonds were not forgery in law and accordingly, when the appellant Harris showed them to Mr. Gold he was not uttering a forgery. However, the common serjeant over-ruled this submission and directed the Jury that the documents were forgery capable of being so regarded, and accordingly, Dodge was convicted of forgery and Harris of uttering. While dealing with the above matter Phillimore Lord Justice held that although there may be false representations but there was no question of forgery. The document did not tell a lie about itself.