Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The short Question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner Siddappa has, by publishing the printed documents in question committed the offence under Section 465, I.P.C. Section 463 defines forgery (leaving out the details not necessary for this case) thus:

"Whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person, commits forgery."

'Making a false document' is described in Section 464(1) as follows:

"A person is said 'to make a false document' who dishonestly or fraudulently makes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made."

It is proved by the evidence of Veerathappa (P.W. 2) Lalithamma (P.W. 11), P.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that the documents were unauthorised and contain facts that are absolutely false. It is contended for the petitioner that the mere getting up a document printed under an unauthorised name does not make it a false document. Reliance is placed for that position on the decision of this Court in -- '2 Mys CCR 252 (A)', where it was held that "The dishonest making of a false document is forgery; but the mere fact of a document containing what is not true, is not sufficient to constitute the offence of forgery."