Understanding Fraudulent and Dishonest Acts: A Comprehensive Analysis of Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code

 Introduction

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, serves as the backbone of India's criminal justice system, providing clear definitions and distinctions between various criminal acts. Among its fundamental concepts are the notions of "dishonestly" and "fraudulently," defined under Sections 24 and 25 respectively. These concepts form the cornerstone for prosecuting property-related offenses and understanding criminal intent in financial crimes. This article examines these crucial legal concepts through the lens of landmark Supreme Court judgments that have shaped their interpretation over the decades.

The Legal Foundation: Defining Dishonest and Fraudulent Acts

Dishonestly Under Section 24 IPC

Print Page

How to ascertain that a person was dealing with stolen property?

 To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the Accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable.

{Para 15}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2022 

Shiv Kumar   Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Decided On: 07.09.2022

Citation: MANU/SC/1114/2022

Print Page

When offence of forgery is not made out even though document is altered?

To attract the second clause of Section 464 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. So in order to attract the clause "secondly" if the document is to be altered it has to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of the accused. Merely changing a document does not make it a false document. Therefore, presuming that the figure "1" was added as was done in this case, it cannot be said that 

the document became false for the simple reason that the appellant had nothing to gain from the same. She was not going to save the bar of limitation.

The last offence which is alleged against the appellant is Section 471 IPC. This section is not applicable in the case of the appellant for the simple reason that we have already found that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor had she acted fraudulently. This Section applies only in case of the use of a forged document as a genuine document. Since we have found that there is no element of forgery at all, there would be no question of there being any valid allegation against the appellant.

Supreme Court of India

Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009

Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar

Reportable

Citation; 2010 CR.L.J 895 SC

Print Page