Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, offence under Section 468 of the I.P.C. is an aggravated form of forgery for the purpose of cheating a person.

11. Offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the I.P.C. which reads:

"Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."

            (1)    The document is a forged one,

            (2)    Accused used the document as genuine,

            (3)    Accused knew or had reason to believe that it

                   was a forged document, and

            (4)    Accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly,

                   knowing or having reason to believe that it

            was a forged document.

15. Offence of forgery has been defines under Section 463 of the I.P.C. which reads:

"Forgery. - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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."

"Fraudulently".- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."

19. In the present case, gravamen of allegations is forgery of High School Certificate purported to have been issued to the petitioner by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa for the purpose of cheating. Therefore, under the facts, in order to attract implication of the petitioner for commission of offence under section 468 of the I.P.C. it has to be prima facie shown that it was the petitioner who forged the High School Certificate intending that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Prosecution has to place materials to indicate that the petitioner forged the document with intention to cheat. Offence of cheating as defined under section 415 of the I.P.C. requires essential element of deception as well as fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused. While analyzing the provisions under sections 420 and 415 of the I.P.C. it has been pointed by the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. -vs- State of Uttaranchal & Ors.: AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251 that it is the intention which is gist of offence of cheating. Similarly, it has been pointed out by this Court in Muralidhar Satpathy -vs- State of Orissa: 2007(I) OLR 611 that guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order to constitute offence punishable under section 420 of the I.P.C., intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered. Forgery as defined under section 463 of the I.P.C. requires that making of any false document must be with intent to cause damage or injury or with intent to commit fraud. As provided under section 464 of the I.P.C. making of a false document for the purpose of forgery must be with dishonest or fraudulent intention. Section 471 of the I.P.C., providing for punishment for the offence of using of forged document as genuine, postulates that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was a forged document and also that accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly. User of a forged document dishonestly or fraudulently shall arise only when accused uses the document with intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss or to defraud.

20. In the present case, even in the charge sheet it has not been alleged that it was the petitioner who forged the High School Certificate. In fact, in course of argument, learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that there is no positive material on record to implicate the petitioner with the offence of commission of forgery for the purpose of cheating inasmuch as it has not been alleged by any of the witnesses that the petitioner made the forged document. However, it was contended that the petitioner used a forged certificate purported to have been issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which was in fact not issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, as genuine for the purpose of securing admission into I.A. course and further higher education and for securing and continuing with employment. It was argued that as the petitioner derived benefits out of the forged certificate, she is guilty of cheating under section 420 of the I.P.C., for forgery for the purpose of cheating under section 468 of the I.P.C. and for using as genuine forged document under section 471 of the I.P.C. In this connection, learned counsel for the State placed reliance of police statements of eight witnesses referred to above.