Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ category.

42. In (2018) 7 SCC 581 [ Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj & Anr.], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-

“22. In Mohd. Ibrahim [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ (Cri) 929] , 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.

26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together. “Forgery” and “fraud” are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that “false document”. Hence, neither Respondent 1 nor Respondent 2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as the appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same. ”

44. In the instant case, in the first place, there is no evidence that A-3, the appellant herein produced the documents before A-1 for sanction of cash credit limits. The first set of documents had been produced by a document signed by K.G.Narasimhan under Ex.P-25 and the second set of documents had been produced under a document signed by P.Ramadoss under Ex.P-67. The signature of the appellant/A-3 is not found in the said documents. The efforts of the prosecution to prosecute A-4 had failed since the evidence produced did not pass the scrutiny of the trial Judge. There is thus no evidence that the appellant herein had created forgery of the said documents. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the offence of cheating had been made out. The ingredients of the charges against the appellant under Section 467 read with 471 and under Section 420 of IPC under which provisions the appellant had been convicted are certainly not made out. The deposition of the witnesses, who speak that the documents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ produced are not true documents would not be sufficient to convict the present appellant under Section 467 read with 471 or under Section 420 IPC. It must be established that the appellant herein had prepared those documents and knowingly after such preparation, produced the said documents to the bank authorities. In the absence of such evidence, the conviction against the appellant cannot stand.