Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. It would be appropriate to first consider whether the complaint averments even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offences punishable either under Section 467, Section 468 or Section 471 of IPC. Section 467 (in so far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 468 provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.

20. The term "forgery" used in these sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 defines "making a false document".

21. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document. This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the third applicant, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property, duly purchased in government auction, can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other applicants.

24. The sale deeds executed by third applicant, clearly and obviously do not fall under any of the categories of `false documents'. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the IPC are attracted. (Refer: Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and others7).