Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
In Re: The Matter Of Dhunum Kazee And ... vs Dhunum Kazee And Anr. on 13 July, 1882
7. The last thing which it is necessary to find is that the use of the document was made fraudulently or dishonestly in order to find that the accused had committed an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code. It has again been ingeniously argued that this document was not used fraudulently or dishonestly, first, because there could not be any intention to defraud any of the parties to the litigation in the course of which this document was filed in Court. It is argued that the plaintiff Romanath had no title to the property and the use of the document could not have defrauded him. Then it is said that as Thakurdasi Debi was no party to the litigation her title was not affected in any way by this document and she has not been in any way defrauded by the use made. The answer to this argument is to be found in the observations made in the case of Empress v. Dhunurn Kazee (1882) 9 Cal. 53, where it has been pointed out that a man may be said to use a document fraudulently even if it is used for the' purpose off supporting a good title. In the present case the document was used for the purpose of establishing the title of the accused with regard to the property and the object was no doubt wrongful gain to himself.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 471 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mobarak Ali And Anr. vs Emperor on 14 March, 1919
We may also refer to the case of Mobarak Ali v King-Emperor (1912) 17 C.W.N. 94. With regard to this point we are of opinion that if a person puts forward a document as supporting his claim in any matter, whether that document is acted upon by the Court or used in evidence is immaterial for the purpose of constituting; use of the document by the party within the meaning of Section 471, Indian Penal Code. In this case the accused pleaded in defence that, he had purchased the land by a kobala from Thakurdasi Debi and he also gave evidence in Court in support of that plea. In the memorandum of appeal he took as one of his grounds of appeal that the Munsiff ought to have accepted his documents which he had tendered in his Court and on that allegation he filed the two documents, the document now in question being one of them, with his memorandum of appeal, Then there is the evidence of the pleader Saroda Prosad Banerjee who filed the appeal on behalf of the accused that the documents had been made over to him by the accused for filing in Court and the grounds of appeal had been drafted by him on instructions received from the accused himself. On these facts there cannot be any possible doubt that the document in question was used by the accused.
Rati Jha vs Emperor on 22 November, 1911
820, but it has been pointed out before this that the head note of the report is wrong in the case of Rati Jha v. Emperor (1911) 39 Cal. 463. It has been held that if a document is filed by the plaintiff in support of his pleading this is sufficient use-within the meaning of Section 471, Indian Penal Code.
Ambica Missir And Ors. vs Emperor on 14 August, 1912
5. An elaborate and ingenious argument has been addressed to us by Babu Bir Bhusan Dutt on behalf of the accused. Ho first contends that as the document was not accepted by the Court it cannot be held that it was used by the accused. He points out that under Order 13, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the rules about the production of documents by parties has been laid down and he contends that because the accused in this case has not been proved to have produced the document in Court in accordance with the provisions of those rules the document could not have been accepted by the Court and it cannot be said to have been produced by him in Court and therefore he had not used it. He further refers to Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, as to the procedure in accordance with which the appellate Court is entitled to receive fresh evidence and contends that as none of the grounds which would entitle the appellate Court to accept the document was in existence, the document has not been as a matter of fact accepted by the Court and therefore it was not used by the accused. The obvious fallacy of this argument, as it seems to us, is that to constitute use of a document it is not necessary that the Court should accept the document produced before it or filed in Court. The argument was based on the case of Ambica Prasad Singh v Emperor (1908) 35 Cal.
1