Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for committing forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Before discussing further, it would be relevant to discuss the law relating to forgery. Section 463 IPC defines forgery while Section 464 IPC defines making a false document. The Sections read as under :­ "463. Forgery--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. "464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.

35. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj, Crl. Appeal nos. 359­ 360/2010, decided on 11 May, 2018, has discussed the law relating to forgery. It has been held as under :­ "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 FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.

"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, FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.
"The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document.
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. "26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially FIR No.257 /1996, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Madan Lal & Ors.