Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Promissory note forgery in The Assistant Sessions Judge Of North ... vs Ramammal And Ors. on 29 November, 1911Matching Fragments
2. The case for the prosecution is that the promissory-note of the 10th August 1902, is a forged document and that no debt was due by the first accused's husband to the 4th accused. The charges against the 1st accused are abetment of forgery of a valuable security (i.e., the promissory-note) and fraudulently using the same under Sections 468 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and Section 471, Indian Penal Code. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th accused are charged with abetment of the forgery of the promissory-note, the 2nd accused was the writer and the 5th accused the attestor of the promissory-note. And the charges against the 4th accused are forgery of the promissory-note and fraudulently using the same as genuine.
4. The commitment of the 4th accused for forgery of the promissory-note and fraudulently using the same as genuine has next to be considered. With respect to the latter Court, it is contended that the production of the document in obedience to an order of the District Munsif s Court does not amount to rising it as genuine. This contention is sound. The 4th accused was bound to produce the promissory-note and would have been punishable under Section 175, Indian Penal Code, if he had failed to do so. An involuntary production of a document in Court cannot be said to amount to any user of it. It was contended for the prosecution before the Assistant Sessions Judge that apart from its production in the District Munsif's Court, the promissory-note was used for giving a colour of validity to the mortgage-deed, but we doubt whether this argument can be upheld. Assuming that the promissory-note was forged before the moitgage-deed was brought into existence, there was nothing done with the promissory-note at the time of the execution of the mortgage-deed, and it was not used in any way. If both the documents were got up at the same time then they were part of the same transaction and the promissory-note could not have been said to be used in any manner for the purpose of executing the mortgage document. The expression, "using a document" is apparently used in the sense of its being put forward in some way for one of the purposes mentioned in Section 463, Indian Penal Code.