Skip to main content

Making a False Document is the First Requirement to Commit Forgery

Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides punishment for committing forgery with intention of using the forged document for the purpose of cheating. Thus, the first requirement of this provision is to commit forgery.
Section 463 IPC defines forgery in the terms that
“whoever makes any false document……, 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 implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”
Thus, from the definition of forgery it is apparent that making a false document is the first requirement to commit forgery.
A full bench of Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, had occasion to deal with the ingredients of forgery and while dealing with this question, the court observed as follows :-
“The first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any communities.”
The court further observed that
“the definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed with a false document is made with specified intention. The questions are
(I) is the document false,
(ii) is it made by the accused and
(iii) is it made with an intent to defraud.
If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.”
The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it amply clear that in order to constitute forgery, the first ingredient, which requires to be established is making of a false document.
While dealing with question of making of false document, Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, held as under :-
“In short, a person is said to have made a false document, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tempered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.”
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
22 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
11 comments
Read more

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...
Post a Comment
Read more