Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33 In this background, it is necessary to see the entire case. The charges against the petitioner are (1) Cheating under Section 420 read with Section 511 of IPC (Attempt to cheat), (2) Forgery under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and conspiracy to do the acts under (1) and (2). 34 In so far as the offence of cheating is concerned, the said offence of cheating requires deception and making a false representation and thus inducing a person to do an act which jdk 65 4.r.crwp.97.18.j.doc he would not do or do being so induced. In the present case, if this is the test on the touchstone of the allegations, the following facts are revealed:

39 In so far as the allegation of forgery in respect of the year 2006 is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of PW 37 Chander Thapper. According to Chander Thapper, 48 employees were all appointed in April 2006 by the jdk 71 4.r.crwp.97.18.j.doc Company and the petitioner has given a letter to the CBI confirming this fact. There is no dispute as far as the petitioner or the CBI that the petitioner had confirmed that 48 employees were all appointed in April 2006. According to the prosecution, these 48 employees were appointed in April 2006 yet, they were shown as employed in the year 2005 and Provident Fund dues in relation to these 48 employees were paid as if they were employed in the year 2005. The question arises is, why would the petitioner and his company back-date the date of employment of these 48 persons and pay Provident Fund thereof when in relation to these 48 persons, they were not required to pay Provident Fund in the year 2005. This is absolutely absurd and it does not stand to reason that the Provident Fund was paid of 48 persons pertaining to the year 2005 when those employees were not on the rolls of the Company in the year 2004 or 2005. When these 48 persons were not on the rolls of the Company in the year 2005, there would be no question at all of paying any Provident Fund dues in relation to these 48 employees. Therefore, the prosecution case that the petitioner has done forgery by showing that these 48 employees though appointed in the year 2006, were shown jdk 72 4.r.crwp.97.18.j.doc as employed in the year 2005 and Provident Fund of Rs. 2,20,962/- was paid accordingly, cannot stand as there is no reason for the petitioner to do so. It does not help the petitioner in any manner. On the contrary, the statements show that it was not the petitioner but it was Joseph Reddy (accused no.7) who was responsible for the records which is clear from the statement of PW 37 Chander Thapper. 40 Let us now deal with the law of "forgery". The following are the important points to be noted as regards the law of "forgery" which is applicable to both the charges of forgery. The prosecution case as far as "forgery" is concerned, seems to be making incorrect recitals as regards charge no.1 and back-dating as regards charge no.2. A bare perusal of Section 463 of IPC which defines "forgery" shows that (1) making a false document within the meaning of Section 464 is a mandatory pre-requisite to fall in any of the provisions of "forgery" including Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and (2) making a false document is defined under Section 464 of IPC which reads as under: