Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The valuable security is defined in Section 30 as denoting a document which is or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right.

Section 463 defines forgery as follows :

"Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

22. It is urged on behalf of the Respondents that the allegation of the petition of complaint is that the writ petitioner signed the compromise petition in appeal case and the undertaking in Suit No. 482 of 1982 purporting to act under the legal authority of the Respondent No. 3 a Government Company but the Respondent No. 3 did not give him any authority to do the above acts and that he did the same fraudulently and dishonestly and consequently prima facie he makes a false document which under Section 464 is forgery under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and when the said documents purport to extinguish the tenancy right of the Respondent No. 3 in the Company flat and in Company Head Office comes within the definition of valuable security and thus the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code has been established by the complainant and there is no ground for holding that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr. Gupta, however, submits that simply because the writ petitioner executed the documents without legal authority the acts of the writ petitioner do not come within the definition of making false document under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. But I am of the view that the definition of making false document indicates that a person makes a false document if he signs a document or part of a document dishonestly or fraudulently with the intention of causing to be believed that such document or part of a document was made signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or whose authority he knows that it was not signed, sealed or executed or at a time he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed. In the petition of complaint it is alleged that the petitioner signed the documents in question claiming to be have authority to sign those documents for and on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 when he knew that he did not have such authority and that he did it fraudulently and dishonestly. Respondent No. 3 being a Government Company has to act only through its authorised person and no person so authorised has any authority to sign any document and if such a person signs such a document without any such lawful authority he does it with the knowledge that he had no such authority. So, when it is alleged in the petition of complaint that the said making of false document is with a fraudulent and dishonest motive, I am of the view that prima facie the acts of the petitioner come within the definition of "making false document" and as such within the definition of "forgery" under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. The documents prima facie have the effect of extinguishing the tenancy right of the Respondent No. 3 in the Company flat and in Company Head Office. So they are a valuable security within the meaning of Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.