Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.18 of 41 464 IPC and even mere proving of making a false document without establishing the intention of the maker is not sufficient to constitute an offence and unless the forgery of a document is proved, it cannot be said that the said forged document is used as genuine one. Therefore, to constitute an offence u/sec. 471 IPC, first an offence u/sec. 468 IPC has be established. Mere preparation of document under once own signature and writings by making false averments therein does not fall within the definition of forgery. The ingredient of the offence u/sec. 468 IPC is committing of forgery with a particular intent, that intent being that the document forged should be used for the purpose of cheating. The Section does not require that accused should actually commit the offence of cheating. Forgery is usually an act done in furtherance of some other criminal design. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery.

11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (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.

12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.23 of 41 of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 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 person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property.

21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-

"a person is said to have made a `false document', if

(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 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.