Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Damodara Panicker vs The State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2019Matching Fragments
22. One of the allegations in the complaint is that the first petitioner executed and registered a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner, gifting her the property in question and therefore, he has committed the offence of forgery punishable under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C.
23. Section 463 I.P.C defines forgery and Section 464 I.P.C deals with making a false document. Section 463 provides that whoever makes any false document 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. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential condition is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. In a case of forgery, the questions are: (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however, small.
25. In Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), the Apex Court has held as follows:
"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 bona fide 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. But to fall under first category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attrated."
26. Making of any false document is sine qua non to attract the offence of forgery. In Sheila Sebastian v. Jawaharaj : AIR 2018 SC 2434, the Apex Court has held that the definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery" and both must be read together. A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under Section 464 I.P.C.
27. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the first petitioner had executed the settlement deed claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else. There is no allegation that he had dishonestly or fraudulently altered the settlement deed, without lawful authority. There is also no allegation that he obtained any document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. Therefore, execution of the settlement deed by the first petitioner in favour of his daughter does not attract the offence of forgery.
31. In this context, it is to be noted that the Village Officer, against whom the allegation is raised by the complainant, is not made an accused in the case. The date or month or year in which correction was made in the revenue register which was kept in the village office is not mentioned in the complaint. It is also not stated in the complaint how the petitioners got possession of the register kept in the village office enabling them to make any correction in it. It is inherently improbable that the petitioners had corrected the entry in a register which was kept in the village office in the custody of the Village Officer. The vague and general allegation that the petitioners had entered into a conspiracy with the Village Officer is not sufficient. What is to be considered is the substance of the complaint. Mere allegation that the petitioners had entered into a conspiracy with the Village Officer, that too, without making that Village Officer as an accused, is not sufficient. As held by the Apex Court in Sheila Sebastian (supra), a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the false document. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. In order to attract the offence of forgery, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same.