Making a False Document
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record,—
Image Source: ueatexas.com
Firstly:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Who dishonestly or fraudulently—
(a) Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature;
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly:
who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery (Explanation). But this must have been done in order that it may be mistaken for the signature of another person of the same name.
Making a false document in the name of a fictitious person intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person or in the name of a deceased person intending it to be believed that the document was made by that person in his lifetime may amount to forgery (Explanation 2).
There are thus three different sets of acts which make a document a false document for the purpose of forgery; to all these sets a fraudulent and dishonest intention is common. The making of a false document is complete as soon as a document is made with intent to commit a fraud.
It is not essential qualities of the fraud mentioned in this section, that it should result in, or aim at deprivation of property. Pre-dating a document may become forgery if the date is a material part of document.
A general intention to defraud, without the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to any particular person, is sufficient. There must, however be a possibility of some person being defrauded.
A man may have an intent to defraud but there may be no person who could be defrauded by his act. The false document must appear to be one which, if true, would possess some legal validity or must be legally capable of affecting the fraud intended.
The basic definition is that of a false document, and the following illustrations appended to this definition are all illustrations of forgery.
Illustrations:
(a) A has a letter of credit upon B for Rs. 10,000 written by Z. A in order to defraud B adds a cipher to the Rs. 10,000, and makes the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 intending that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.
(b) A without Z’s authority affixes Z’s seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling the estate of B and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase-money. A has committed forgery.
(c) A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any sum having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
(d) A leaves with B, his agent, a cheque on a banker, signed by A, without inserting the sum payable and authorises B to fill up the cheque by inserting a sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees for the purpose of making certain payments. B fraudulently fills up cheque by inserting the sum of twenty thousand rupees. B commits forgery.
(e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B without B’s authority, intending to discount it as a genuine bill with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity. Here, as A draws the bill intending to deceive the banker by leading him to suppose that he had the security of B, and thereby to discount the bill. A is guilty of forgery.
(f) Z’s Will contains these words—”I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided between A, B and C”. A dishonestly scratches out B’s name, intending that it may be believed that the whole was left to himself and C. A has committed forgery.
(g) A endorses a Government promissory note and makes it payable to Z or his order by writing on the bill the words “pay to Z or his order” and signs the endorsement. B dishonestly erases the words “pay to Z or his order” and thereby converts the special endorsement into a blank endorsement. B commits forgery.
(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estates executes a conveyance of the same estate to B, dated six months earlier than the date of the conveyance to Z intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery.
(i) Z dictates his Will to A, A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee named by Z, and by representing to Z that he prepared the Will according to his instructions, induces Z to sign the Will. A has committed forgery.
(j) A writes a letter and signs it with B’s name without B’s authority, certifying that A is a man of good character and in distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune intending by means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, A made false document in order to induce Z to part with property. A has committed forgery.
(k) A without B’s authority writes a letter and signs it in B’s name certifying to /4’s character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. A has committed forgery inasmuch as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and thereby to induce Z to enter into an express or implied contract for service.
Explanation 1:
A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Illustrations:
(a) A signs his own name to bill of exchange, intending that it may be believed that the bill was drawn by another person of the same name. A has committed forgery.
(b) A writes the word “accepted” on a piece of paper and signs it with Z’s name, in order that B may afterwards write on the paper a bill of exchange drawn by B upon Z, and negotiates the bill as though it had been accepted by Z., A is guilty of forgery; and if B, knowing the fact, draws the bill upon the paper pursuant to A’s intention. B is also guilty of forgery.
(c) A picks up a bill of exchange payable to the order of a different person of the same name. A endorses that bill in his own name intending to cause it to be believed that it was endorsed by the person to whose order it was payable. Here, A has committed forgery.
(d) A purchased an estate sold under execution of a decree against B. B after the seizure of the estate, in collusion with Z, executes a lease of the estate to Z at a nominal rent and for a long period and dates the lease six months prior to its seizure with intent to defraud A, and cause it to be believed that the lease was granted before the seizure. B, though he executes the lease in his own name, commits forgery by ante-dating it.
(e) A, a trader, in anticipating of insolvency, lodges effects with B for A’s benefit, and with intent to defraud his creditors, and in order to give a colour to the transaction, writes a promissory note binding himself to pay to B a sum for value received, and ante-dates the note, intending that it may be believed to have been made before A was on the point of insolvency. A has committed forgery under the first head of the definition.
Explanation 2:
A draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious person, and fraudulently accepts the bill in the name of such fictitious person with intent to negotiate it. A commits forgery.
Explanation 3:
For the purposes of this section the expression “affixing digital signature” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Affixing digital signature:
As provided by clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 “Affixing digital signature” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means adoption of any methodology or procedure by a person for the purpose of authenticating an electronic record by means of digital signature.
Forgery has been defined in Section 463. It shows that whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury, would be said to commit forgery. The word “document” has been defined in Section 29; I.P.C. Section 464 defines as to what would be making a false document.
The first clause of Section 464 clearly shows that anyone who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed be said to make a false document.
The illustrations are also very clear such as (c) and (d). Passengers tickets signed and issued in the circumstances contemplated in the first clause of Section 464 would be false documents and the person issuing them would be guilty of forgery.
Forgery is making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim, or title, etc. Dishonesty or fraud must underlie the making of a false document; otherwise a document though false in the general sense, is not false in the special sense required to constitute forgery.
Though Section 464 defines a “false document” as something distinct from forgery simply making a false document as defined in Section 464 amounts to forgery as defined in Section 463 as the various alternative intents mentioned in Section 463 —the “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, the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed —are necessarily implied in the terms “dishonestly” and “fraudulently” as used in Section 464.
And since the offence is complete as soon as a false document is made with the requisite intent, it is not necessary that the document should have been used, or published or that the injury should have in fact been caused.
To constitute the crime of forgery it is not essential that the forged instrument should be so made that, if it were in truth what it purports to be, it would be valid; but the false instrument must carry on the face of it the semblance of a valid instrument, and must not be obviously an illegal document.
It is not necessary that the resemblance to a genuine instrument should be exact, it is sufficient if the false instrument is so like as to be calculated to deceive persons on ordinary observation, although persons having special experience as regards such instrument would not be deceived.
What constitutes ‘making of a document depends on the nature and the use it is intended for’. It does not necessarily require that it should be in every case in writing or contain the signature or facsimile of any person and includes what is done by way of printing.
Thus, false invitation to a marriage between P and Q between whom no marriage had been arranged is forgery.
There is a difference of opinion about the meaning of the word “makes”. According to one view a person cannot be said to make a document where he has not signed or sealed it. It is re-affirmation of the view held in an earlier case, wherein it was held that the making of a document or part of a document does not mean the ‘writing’ or printing it but signing or otherwise executing it; it does not mean the writing out of the form of the instrument but sealing or signing it as a deed or note.
This view has been open to criticism that the word “makes” has been used along with “signs, seals or executes” so that unless it signifies a different meaning, it becomes redundant and devoid of meaning.
Accordingly the other view as expressed in the following cases, is that the word “makes” does not mean anything else than creates or brings into existence. The word “makes” does not mean a mere mechanical reproduction but involves a conscious act of the maker.
The making must have a dishonest or fraudulent intent behind it. A document may be made ‘false’ by wiping out the signatures which give its validity.
Forest officers put letters or marks on trees as evidence that they have passed them for removal. Counterfeiting such marks on other trees would amount to making a false document and the person doing it would be guilty of forgery if it is done with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
The ante-dating of a document is not forgery unless it has prejudiced or could have prejudiced somebody. Fraudulently ante-dating a document so as to give it priority over a document of a later date or to save limitation or for any other fraudulent purpose, would amount to forgery; but ante-dating is not necessarily forgery in all cases.
In State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, the Supreme Court held that in view of the fact under Section 464, Indian Penal Code, a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, the reasoning of the High Court that the bail order without the signature cannot be said to be a document thereby not attracting the provisions of Section 464, I.P.C. is wholly unsustainable.