Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14.5 With regard to Section 167, it is to be noted that the accused are the Head of the Department and the Chief Anaesthetic of the Medical College, respectively and they are academic professors not charged with the duty to prepare or maintain an attendance register. No statutory provision specifically obligates a head of the department or a Chief Anaesthetic to prepare or maintain an attendance register and in the absence of any such specific statutory mandate, the petitioners cannot be charged with the manipulation/forgery of the document and therefore, the offence under Section 167 cannot be attracted as against the petitioners. In support of the same, the petitioners seek to rely on the Division Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Kalusing Dalesing Rajput vs. State of Maharashtra , 1969 (71) BOM LR 669.
? (21) All these circumstances go to show that far from these documents coming into existence on the respective dates which they bore they were in fact brought into existence on the afternoon of the 11th April 1949 at the Constitution House as alleged by the prosecution and were ante-dated to the 1st April 1949 and the 2nd April 1949 respectively with a view to show that the resumption order had already been granted by the first appellant to the Syndicate at Rewa on the 2nd April 1949. The evidence of Nagindas and Pannalal thus in respect of the forgery of these documents bears the stamp of truth and deserves to be accepted.?
374. He also submit that Section 374- In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently.

But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small.?

15.12. He would further submit that the defacfo-complainant was not permitted to appear in the examination on the ground of lack of attendance. As per Rule, 30 days leave is eligible for P.G. students, so the defacto- complainant is eligible for 60 days leave for 2 years. It comes around 9.4%. According to the working sheet prepared by the Investigation Officer, the defacto-complainant attended 71%. Hence, the defacto-complainant has got 80.4% of attendance, so he is eligible to appear in the examinations.

(i) Making, signing, sealing or executing a document or a part of a document.
(ii) Such act of making or signing or sealing or executing should be done dishonestly or fraudulently.

32. In the present case, it is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioners have either made or signed or sealed or executed any document or part thereof. The only allegation against the petitioners is that with an ulterior motive to prevent the defacto- complainant from writing the examination, they put "A" and star mark (" * ") above and below the signature of the de facto complainant in the attendance register, thereby to appear that he did not attend the classes on those days and thereby he lacks attendance to sit for the examinations. Thus, in the absence of any allegation of making or signing the document in the impugned charge sheet, the petitioners cannot be said to have made a false document nor have they been said to have committed forgery. Secondly, such making of document should have been done "dishonestly" or ?fraudulently?. The term "dishonestly" has been defined under Section 24 IPC as hereunder: