IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) Making of a false document is the hasic ingredient of forgery.
(ii) An accused cannot be convicted of an offence for which he is not charged.

JUDGMENT

S. Padmanabhan, J. - This is an appeal by special leave filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode.

2. The respondent was a Teacher. Pursuant to complaints from the public that bogus ration cards are attached to some ration shops, the Government took steps to verify these ration cards. Teachers were appointed to do the work. One of the persons deputed for the verification work was the respondent. Alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code C.C. No. 77 of 1977 was charge-sheeted against him and it was tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calicut. The allegation against him was that he reported the genuineness of the declarations concerning some ration cards attached to ration shop No. ARD. 52. Ext. P. 31 is the report of verification submitted by him. On a re-verification it was found that Ext. P. 31 included lists of fictitious persons for whom ration cards were issued. It was under these circumstances that the case happened to be charge-sheeted against him.

3. In C.C. No. 77 of 1977 the learned Magistrate found the respondent guilty, He was convicted and sentenced. In Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 1979 the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode found that the factual finding of the Magistrate regarding the commission is correct. At the same time the Sessions Judge was of view that the facts disclosed will not constitute an offence punishable under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Reasons in support of that finding were also given. According to the Sessions Judge the allegations will only amount to an offence punishable under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. This finding is challenged in appeal and hence the first question to be considered is whether the allegation and evidence do not constitute an offence punishable under section 468 but only an offence punishable under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the respondent is that he committed an offence punishable under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to constitute such an offence there must be commission of forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Forgery is defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery involves making any false document or part of a document with intention 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, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Making of a false document is the basic ingredient of forgery. . Making of false document must involve any of the three ingredients under section 464. They are:

Making of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by the person by whom the maker knows that it was not made, or

Altering a document in any material part without lawful authority  after it was made, or

Causing any other person to execute or alter a document knowing that such person does not know the contents of the document and the nature of the alteration by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication.

5. In this case what happened according to the prosecution was this Public complaints arose that bogus ration cards were attached to some ration shops. Hence the Government took steps to verify the ration cards. Teachers were deputed for this work. Respondent was one among them. He was appointed to do the verification in respect of house numbers 219 to 443 in Ward 9, Kozhikode Corporation. After verification he reported genuineness of the declaration concerning ration cards attached to ration shop No. ARD 52. Ex. P. 31 is the verification certificate. On re-verification conducted by P W. 4, the City Rationing Inspector, it was found that Ext. P. 31 contained false declarations in the names of fictitious persons. It was P.W. 4 who reported forgery against the respondent in