Whether penal statutes can be expanded by using implication?

 Although we acknowledge the appellant’s
plight who has suffered due to alleged acts of forgery, but
we are not able to appreciate the appellant’s contentions
as a penal statute cannot be expanded by using
implications. Section 464 of the IPC makes it clear that
only the one who makes a false document can be held
liable under the aforesaid provision. It must be borne in
mind that, where there exists no ambiguity, there lies no
scope for interpretation. 
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 359-360 OF 2010

SHEILA SEBASTIAN  V R. JAWAHARAJ & ANR.

Print Page

Whether offence of forgery is made out against a person who has not created it or signed it?

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
20. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in
understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 of
IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill,
(1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and
making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to
make”, in itself involves conscious act on the part of the
maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against
a person who has not created it or signed it.
 Keeping in view the strict interpretation of
penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation
wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that
a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is
not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases,
making of a document is different than causing it to be
made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies
that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is
imperative that a false document is made and the
accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the
accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of “false document” is a part of
the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 359-360 OF 2010

SHEILA SEBASTIAN  V R. JAWAHARAJ & ANR.
Dated: May 11, 2018.
Citation:(2018)7 SCC 581

Print Page

How to prove essential ingredients of offence of forgery?

The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467, 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the accused (petitioners), in executing and registering the general power of attorney purporting to sell a property, can be said to have made and executed false document. 

An analysis of section 464 IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 

The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 

The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 

The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 

In short, WHEN , if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. 

In Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 upon examining Section 463, 467 to 471 IPC as noted, herein above, the Court while dealing with sale-deeds executed by the accused held:

"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. 

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17783 of 2010

Rajesh Gandhi And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Another

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. 

Order Date :- 30.5.2016 

Print Page