Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Singaravelan vs The State on 3 November, 2022Matching Fragments
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
7/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.16327 & 19045 of 2018
10. The main ground that has to be considered by this Court is as to whether based on the allegations made in the final report, whether an offence of forgery has been made out in this case. The allegations with regard to the offence of forgery is based on the documents that were created in favour of A13 to A17, which are termed to be false documents by the second respondent. It must be borne in mind that if there is no creation of false document, then automatically the offence of forgery must fall. This issue is no longer res integra and it has been substantially dealt with by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2009 (8) Supreme Court Cases
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.16327 & 19045 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.16327 & 19045 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."
12. 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.16327 & 19045 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.