Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Ramakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 June, 1982Matching Fragments
Subsequently, the above said Maruthaiammal executed a registered sale deed on 04.02.2004 in favour of the petitioner herein and he is in possession of the same in pursuance of the above said sale deed. He did not forge any document. He further submitted that the property in S.No.61/5A at Maruthangudi Village Kallukudi Taluk , Madurai District measuring 1.16 cents was given to the petitioner by his mother Muthammal by way of settlement deed dated 08.08.2012, therefore, the petitioner had not created any false documents. For attracting the offence of forgery, making of false documents are essential. The alleged sale deed and the settlement deed were executed by the petitioner’s sister and mother and this petitioner did not make any false document.
“19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery Under Section 463, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction Under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed Under Section 463, implying that ingredients Under Section should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until! ingredients Under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted Under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section , as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467,IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471,IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463,IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section , IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467and 471,IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.
26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together. ‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that ‘false document’. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused.