Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[234] However, since we have already held that the rt commission of the said offence has not been convincingly established, the accused could not have been convicted for the offence of forgery. The definition of "false document"

is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. [Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1963 Supp2 SCR 585]".

18. It was further held that in the absence of the document being forged a person cannot be convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. It was observed:-

.

"[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 at hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the of respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute the mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the rt 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".

rt

52. This Court held that the sale deed executed did not constitute a "false document" under Section 464 IPC as follows : (Devendra case [Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 190 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 461], SCC pp. 502-503, paras 18-20) "18. Section 463 of the Penal Code reads as under:

'463. 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 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.' According to Mr Das, making a false document so as to support any claim over title would constitute forgery within the meaning of the said provision and as a document was created for the purpose of showing one-third share in the joint property by the appellants although they were not entitled to therefor, they must be held to have committed an offence.

165. The learned Special Judge, therefore, in our opinion, erred in holding that the accused had prepared a false document, which clearly, having regard to the provisions of the law, could not have been done.

166. Further, the offence of forgery deals with the making of a false document with the specific intentions enumerated therein. The said section has been reproduced below.

'463. 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 .