(2018)1 SCeJ 1105

*SUPREME COURT E@JOURNAL*

 

IPC , Section 464 Explanation 2, Charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same - Making of a document is different than causing it to be made - 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 - Evidence on record clearly reveals that PoA was not executed by the complainant and the beneficiary is the accused, still the accused could not be convicted - 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.

 

IPC , Section 463, 464, 465 - Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC -  Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document -  Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery -  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.     

 

(iii) Indian Penal Code, Section 463, 464  - ‘Forgery’, ‘Fraud’,  “false document”  - The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together -  ‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts -  In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that ‘false document’ -  Neither accused (using the forged PoA the accused no. 1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no. 2) can be held as makers of the forged documents -  It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery.

 

(iv) Criminal Trial -  ‘reasonable doubt’ has been enunciated by apex Court as “a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt, further it has been elaborated that reasonable doubt must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis.” (Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66  ) - Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof -  Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof -  Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof  -  The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability -  In case at hand, the imposter has not been found or investigated  - Nothing has been spilled on the relationship between the imposter and accused - Trial Court as well as the appellate Court carried away by the fact that accused is the beneficiary or the executant of the mortgage deed, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove the first transaction i.e PoA as a fraudulent and forged transaction -  The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.

 

(v) Criminal Trial -  ‘Reasonable doubt’ has been enunciated by as “a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt, further it has been elaborated that reasonable doubt must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis.” - Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof -  Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof -  Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof  -  The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.

 

Download

(2018)2 SCeJ 1105 - fraud forgery.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 131.9 KB