Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Offence of forgery involves making of a false document or part of it. Such making has to be with the intent (i) to cause damage or injury to either public or any person or (ii) to support any claim or title or (iii) to cause any person to part with his property or (iv) to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract or (v) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Making of a false document simpliciter, does amount to forgery. Fraud is an integral part of forgery. The offence of forgery is complete if a false document is made with intent to commit fraud although it may not have been made with any one or other intents specified in Section 463. Where there is intent to deceive and by means of deceit to obtain an advantage, there is fraud, and if the document is fabricated with such intent it amounts to forgery.

21. Referring to the allegations in the FIR that the petitioners purposefully stamped the Invoice, with the stamp of Astec Life Sciences Ltd. to represent that the pesticide is supplied by Astec Life Sciences though it was supplied by Astec Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. from its Thane unit; learned Counsel Shri Soman contends that the petitioners have committed forgery of the document. To establish offence of forgery it must be shown that the petitioners made a false document and that such making was with the intent of causing loss or damage to respondent No. 3 or to cause respondent No. 3 to part with the property or to induce it to enter into a contract for purchasing the pesticide. Existent of dishonest or fraudulent intent on the part of the forger has to be established. Fraudulent intent can be presumed if there is an intention to deceive and by means of deceit to obtain an advantage. In the present case there is nothing beyond the allegation that the petitioners used rubber stamp of Astec Life Sciences though the goods were in fact supplied by Astec Chemicals. The petitioners have placed an affidavit dated 19th of October 2007 sworn by petitioner No. 6 in respect of the change in the name of the company from Astec Chemicals Private Limited to Astec Life Sciences Private Limited and thereafter to Astec Life Sciences Limited to show transition from private limited company to public limited company. Certificates dated 3rd March 2006 and 27th April 2006 issued by the Registrar of Companies are placed on record. In the paragraph 5 of the affidavit petitioner No. 6 states that manufacturing licence of the Dombivali plant alone was suspended. Licence for Mahad plant was valid. In the absence of the averment that the stamping was done with dishonest or fraudulent intention to cause loss or damage or for inducement to secure a contract, it is difficult to envisage how the allegations of forgery can be substantiated. Careful consideration of the material on record would show that Astec had regular dealings with Nath Bio-genes and had no necessity to resort to the device of fabricating the invoice. In the light of the facts of the present case, as none of the ingredients of forgery are satisfied even at the prima facie stage, it is not possible for us to subscribe to the view that use of the rubber stamp of Astec Life Sciences on the invoice does amount to forgery of the invoices issued by the petitioners.