Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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.

(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or

(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or

(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."

(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 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 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 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.

Facts of the case law (Supra) are, that Ld. Judicial Magistrate framed charges against accused 1&2 for commission of offences punishable u/ss 420, 423, 465, 424 r/w 109 IPC. Both the accused were tried by Ld. Judicial Magistrate at Madras, found guilty and convicted accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, respondents/accused appeared before Ld. Sessions Judge Tirunelveli which ended up in dismissal by upholding the order of conviction. Respondents appeared before High Court which acquitted the accused in revision petition by setting aside concurrent findings of the courts below by observing that if offence of forgery in regard to making false document is not proved, then other offences u/s 464/420 IPC being consequential equally cannot be sustained. Hon‟ble Supreme Court concurring with the opinion of the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused and maintained the order of acquittal by the High Court and dismissed the appeals by observing, that unless ingredient of forgery under Section 363 IPC i.e. a person making a false document is not proved, the consequential offences cannot lie against said person/accused who neither created the forged document nor signed it. In the case in hand, as the trial court vide impugned judgment has already held/opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant/convict has forged the bills, therefore, charges against appellant/convict u/s 468 r/w 471 RPC cannot be sustained. This being the position of law, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that appellant/convict has committed any forgery or prepared forged documents in regard to the allegations of inflated bills to draw the reimbursement claim in his favour. Moreso, no handwriting expert has been cited as witness, nor the bills/vouchers/cash memo/acquaintance rolls/cash book/drawl registers have been sent to FSL to find out whether there is a forgery in regard to preparation of bills, therefore, no cogent and reliable evidence has been tendered by the prosecution to prove the inflation of bills. Offences u/s 409 RPC r/w section 5(2) of P.C. Act being consequential offences, therefore, also cannot be said to have been proved, by the prosecution as none of the prosecution witnesses have tendered cogent and trustworthy evidence that appellant/convict has forged and inflated bills and withdrawn excess amount by using his official position as public servant causing pecuniary advantage to him and correspondence loss to state exchequer. Even PW-7 Mohd Shafi on the relevant date of alleged embezzlement during the year September 1993 to November 1996 while posted as Accountant in Treasury Office Thathri under the supervision of accused, has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that the alleged vouchers of the medical reimbursement sent to him by the accused were examined by him and they were found beyond any pale of doubt.