Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.It will also be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj and another reported in (2018) 3 MLJ (Crl) 39 (SC) LNIND 2018 SC 265. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-

19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete

22. In Md. Ibrahim and others V. State of Bihar and another (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security Crl Rev. No. 248/2022 Azizur Rehman vs. State & Anr. Page No. 13 of 18 ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.02.28 12:31:02 +0530 (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 Crl Rev. No. 248/2022 Azizur Rehman vs. State & Anr. Page No. 15 of 18 ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.02.28 12:31:16 +0530 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 no.1 nor respondent no.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 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.

14. In my considered opinion, Ld. Trial Court erred in law in relying upon the testimony of Md. Ibrahim who claims to have signed as witness on the document dated 22.11.1989 as the said witness himself is an accused in FIR No. 820/16, PS Jamia Nagar alongwith the complainant Ajaz Ahmad for forgery of the said document and charges on that count have already been framed against them by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2022.





Crl Rev. No. 248/2022          Azizur Rehman vs. State & Anr.           Page No. 17 of 18


                                            ANUJ                ANUJ AGRAWAL
                                            AGRAWAL             Date: 2023.02.28
                                                                12:31:31 +0530