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

Notes on offence of Forgery

Forgery(S 463 of IPC){S 336(1) of BNS}

Whoever makes any false document or a false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with the intent:

a) to cause damage or injury to public or to any person,or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any contract(express or implied),or

b) to support any claim or title,or

c)to commit fraud,or

d)that fraud may be committed,

commits forgery.

Read important judgments on forgery:
Click here

Making a false document or electronic record(S 464 of IPC) {S 335 of BNS}

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-

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

Whether filing of false affidavit, false document and making false statement on oath amounts to contempt of court?

The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings nor only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted not the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma MANU/SC/0558/1995 : 1994ECR636(SC) the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interfere with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: (At P. 4995, of AIR)

"The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if any thing is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be property dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice."

Thus, if any person tries to either file any false affidavit, forged document or even makes false statement on oath, the conduct of such person has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings. This conduct is having tendency of impeding, obstructing or interference striking a blow on the role of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake the confidence of the public and in the judicial institution. It would be in our view a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to file false affidavits by giving false statements or fabricating false evidence even by impersonation in a Court of law and as such, this type of acts clearly fall within the definition of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Cr. C.C.C. No. 26/2000

Decided On: 30.07.2003

Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka
Vs.
 Chidambara and Anr.

Coram:
A.M. Farooq and S.R. Bannurmath, JJ.
Citation: 2004 CRLJ493

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

Whether an offence of forgery or making of false document is made out against a person if he has made false recitals in any document?

The question is whether on the basis of the allegations

levelled by the complainant with respect to the forgery and connected

offences, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the

accused persons.

 I find that in the complaint, there is no mention of any

specific document as a forged document. The grievance of the

complainant is basically that the documents on the basis of which the

ownership or possessory rights over the property are claimed, are not

valid in law. The learned counsel for the complainant was unable to

point out any particular document as a “false document” supporting

the allegation of forgery, and his basic contention appears to be that

the recitals in some of the documents, on the basis of which claim of

rights over the property is being made, are false. It is quite

elementary that merely because the recitals in a documents are false,

that would not make it a false document as defined in Section 464 of

the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2827 OF 2013

Shrikant Purshottam Paranjape & Ors. 

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .

 CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2014.

Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI)1394

Print Page