Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We are unable to agree to the decisions of this Court to which reference has been made above. It is true that in order to constitute the offence of forgery as defined by Section 463, Penal Code, it is essential that a "false document" should have been made as explained by Section 464, Penal Code. In other words an act which is said to constitute forgery must amount to making a false document within the meaning of Section 464 and as in Section 464 the words "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" occur a document cannot be a "false document unless it is prepared with a dishonest or fraudulent intent. Section 23 of the Code defines "wrongful gain," "wrongful loss" and "gaining wrongfully; losing wrongfully." The next Section 24 provides that:

whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful, loss to another is said to do that thing dishonestly.

9. Section 25 provides that:

a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.

10. It is manifest therefore that in order to constitute the offence of forgery a document should have been made either with the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss or with intent to defraud some person. But there is nothing in the Code to justify the assumption that the intention to cause wrongful gain or worngful loss, or the intent to defraud, contemplated by Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, has reference to some future occurrence and not to the past."

12. Where therefore there is an intention to obtain an advantage by deceit there is fraud ' and if a document is fabricated with such intent, it is forgery. A man who deliberately makes a false document in order to conceal a fraud already committed by him is undoubtedly acting with intent to commit fraud, as by making the false document he intends the party concerned to believe that no fraud had been committed. It requires no argument to demonstrate that steps taken and devices adopted with a view to prevent persons already defrauded from, ascertaining that fraud had been perpetrated on them and thus to enable the person who practised the fraud to retain the illicit gain which he secured by the fraud amount to the commission of a fraud. An act that is calculated to conceal fraud already committed and to make the party defrauded believe that no fraud had been committed is a fraudulent act and the person responsible for the act acts fraudulently within the meaning of Section 25 of the Code. Further it is provided by Section 23 of the Code that:

a person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully as well as when such person acquires wrongfully.

13. A document that is made with the intention of concealing a dishonest act already committed is made "dishonestly" within the meaning of Section 24 as it facilitates the retention of the wrongful gain already made. We hold there- fore, that if a document is prepared with the intention of concealing a fraud that had already been committed, and thus to enable the person who had made "wrongful gain" to retain the property that he had acquired by unlawful means, amounts to a false document and the person making the document is guilty of forgery. The view that we take is in consonance with the decision of the Madras High Court in Queen-Empress v. Sabapati (1883) 11 Mad 411, the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Lolit Mohan Sarkar v. Queen-Empress (1895) 22 Cal 313 and Emperor v. Rash Behari Das (1908) 35 Cal 450, and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Balkrishna Waman (1913) 37 Bom 666. The respondent before us was charged under Section 477-A, Penal Code. That section was introduced in the Code for the first time by Act 3 of 1895. It is worthy of note that the word "dishonestly" does not occur in that section and all that is necessary to bring an accused person within the purview of that section is that he should have altered or falsified etc., any book, paper, etc., "willfully and with intent to defraud." It cannot be doubted for a moment that the falsification of the delivery book by the respondent was with a view to conceal the misappropriations made by him and thus to enable him to retain the amount misappropriated by him. It follows therefore that he by the falsification of accounts intended to and did derive an advantage for sometime which' he could not have derived if the books had not been falsisified. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that the falsification of the delivery book by the respondent was with intent to defraud and he was rightly convicted under Section 477-A, Penal Code, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and restore the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The accused shall be deemed to have been serving the sentence of imprisonment passed on him in the present case concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment passed on him on 29th January 1932 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1931.