Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that this was not a case of forgery because the documents at Annexure "C" was admittedly prepared by the petitioners i.e. in their office in the name of the petitioner and consequently the matter did not come in the definition of the word "forgery". Secondly, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the dispute between petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 1 was purely of a civil nature, that no criminality involved in it and therefore the Magistrate committed error in framing charges. Thirdly, according to him in the arbitration proceedings the complainant-respondent No. 1 was present and an award was passed against him and to give counter blow to the said Award being passed in anticipation, the complainant filed the present complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon certain authorities and documents in support of his contention.

6. Section 463 of the IPC defines forgery as under :-

463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false document or part of a document 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.

And Section 464 defines "Making a false document" and also lays down three manners in which false documents can be said to have been made. As per the first category "Whoever dishonestly or bfraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed.

7. Relying upon this definition of making false document, the learned Counsel for the petitioners Contended that it was not the case of the complainant that petitioner made document Exhibit "C-7" with intention of causing it to be believed that this document was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority the petitioners knew that it was not made and therefore document Exhibit "C-7" did not amount to forgery.

8. It is true that on the face of it documents Exhibit "C-7" is not made by the petitioner with the intention of causing it to be believed that the petitioner made the document with or by the authority of some other person and as such it appears that petitioners have a strong case in their favour. However, there is another angle to this argument and according to the learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned APP Illustration (h) of Section 464 and Explanation 1 of Illustration (e) thereof squarely and directly bring the case within the ambit of Sections 463 and 464.

It will be seen from the Illustration (h) that A in order to defraud Z executed a conveyance of the same estate to B which was ariti-dated by six months than the conveyance of Z and this was done by A intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z and this has been held to be forgery. From this illustration it will be clear that a man can be to have committed a forgery of document even if he himself is the author and signatory of the document. This illustration does not require that he should sign a document making it to be believed that somebody else has signed the same or that he was authorised to sign the same on somebody else's behalf.