Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 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, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 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 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, 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 464, 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 to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.

Learned Senior counsel has submitted that though the revisional Court has observed that it is the co-accused Dr. Nishi Kant Arya, who has prepared/obtained forged and fake Nepalese Citizenship Cards/Certificates but despite that the charges have been framed under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioners only. Learned Senior counsel has further submitted that the revisional Court has wrongly allowed the revision of CBI thereby directing the trial Court to additionally frame the charge under Section 467 IPC against all the accused persons though the allegations of forgery are only against one accused, i.e. Dr. Nishi Kant Arya.

(v) Even otherwise, it is concluded in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as also held by the Board that Dr. Mohinder Bajaj and Dr. Nishkant Arya (since deceased), by taking money i.e. Rs.11.50 lacks each from the parents of the petitioners procured the Nepalese Citizenship Card by putting thumb-impression of Dr. Nishi Kant Arya on all the 11 applications and uploaded the applications forms by a single IP address, i.e. 115.108.2468.8 the original of the same were recovered from the said two accused would reflect that the offence of 'forgery', if any, as defined under Section 467 IPC was committed by the said two accused only as there was no meeting of mind 31 of 34 CRM-M-15444-2016 - 32 -