Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Jayantibhai vs C on 10 January, 2012Matching Fragments
(8.2) Counsel further submitted that the land was purchased through public advertisement. When such mode is adopted by the authorities, it cannot be alleged that the land at a rate higher than market rate was purchased by IPCL. In this connection he relied on decision of the Apex Court in case of R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha and others reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 692.
(8.3) Counsel submitted that the allegations of forgery are not made out. Even if thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers or thumb impressions of some other persons were obtained on documents, that by itself would not constitute offence of forgery. In this regard counsel relied on decision of the Apex Court in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751.
Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (1999 (5) SCC 690). Both Amrik Singh (supra) and Shreekantiah (supra) were noted in that case. Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar."
(23.1) Offence of forgery is defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code as under :
463. 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.
(23.2) Thus any person making any false documents or part of the document with the intent to cause damage to the public or 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 the fraud may be committed can be stated to have committed forgery.
(23.6) In turn if it is found that accused had made a false document in terms of provisions contained under Section 463 of the IPC, they (if so established) having made such false documents with intent to cause damage to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to enter into any contract or with intent to commit fraud, can be stated to have committed fraud. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is therefore, not accepted.
The contention that there is no case of forgery of documents cannot be made out since prosecution's case is that several documents in the form of village record were presented before IPCL which contained entries not forming part of original Government records.