Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to Mr Das, making of a false document so as to support any claim over title would constitute forgery within the meaning of the said provision and as a document was created for the purpose of showing one-third share in the joint property by the appellants although they were not entitled to therefor, they must be held to have committed an offence.

19. Making of any false document, in view of the definition of "forgery" is the sine qua non therefor. What would amount to the making of a false document is specified in Section 464 thereof. What is, therefore, necessary is to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document inter alia was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made.

11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery"
used in these two sections is defined in Section
463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into an express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
[232] The learned Special Judge, therefore, in our opinion, erred in holding that the accused had prepared a false document, which clearly, having regard to the provisions of the law, could not have been done.
[233] Further, the offence of forgery deals with the making of a false document with the specific intentions enumerated therein. The said section has been reproduced below.
"463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record with, intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or 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."

52. This Court held that the sale deed executed did not .

constitute a "false document" under Section 464 IPC as follows : (Devendra case [Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 190 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 461], SCC pp. 502-503, paras 18-20) "18. Section 463 of the Penal Code reads 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 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.' According to Mr Das, making a false document so as to support any claim over title would constitute forgery within the meaning of the said provision and as a document was created for the purpose of showing one-third share in the joint property by the appellants although they were not entitled to therefor, they must be held to have committed an offence.