Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, Guha
PRAMATHA NATH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revn 262 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 26, 1951
FORGERY - ABETMENT - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - MAKING OF FALSE DOCUMENT - DISHONEST INTENTION - AUTHORITY - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - SANCTION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Pramatha Nath Harabab, was convicted under Section 465/110, Penal Code, for abetting forgery of a document, a withdrawal petition filed before the Appellate Officer Uluberia under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The co-accused, Suchandra Kumar Samanta, who forged the document, was acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no forgery as there was no "making" of a false document. The court interpreted "making" to mean signing, sealing, or executing a document, not merely writing or printing it. The court also held that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the applicant as he genuinely believed he had the authority to file the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether there was forgery in the absence of signing, sealing, or executing a false document? 2. Whether the applicant had the dishonest intention to commit forgery? 3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove abetment of forgery?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that "making" a false document under Sections 463 and 464, Penal Code, requires signing, sealing, or executing the document, not merely writing or printing it. Mere preparation for the commission of forgery without a false document in part or in whole cannot be forgery or abetment of forgery. 2. The court held that the applicant did not have the dishonest intention to commit forgery as he genuinely believed he had the authority to file the petition. Abuse of authority without dishonest intention does not constitute forgery. 3. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove abetment of forgery as the only evidence was the vague statement of the co-accused that the applicant advised him to write the petition, which did not amount to instigation, intentional aiding, or conspiracy.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and directed that the applicant be acquitted of the charge and discharged from his bail bond.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by one Pramath Nath Harabab for setting aside the order of the Magistrate of Uluberia dated 12th April 1950.
( 2 ) THE applicant was convicted under Section 465/ 110, Penal Code, for having abetted forgery of a document. The document in question is a petition for withdrawal filed before the Appellate Officer Uluberia under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.
( 3 ) THERE was another co-accused by the name of Suchandra Kumar Samanta. He was charged under Section 465 Penal Code, for having forged that particular document. Suchandra has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
( 4 ) TWO main points have been argued before us on behalf of the applicant. One is that the offence disclosed is not one of forgery and the other is that in any event there is no abetment of such offence with which the applicant has been charged. It is necessary to set out here at the outset the charge against the applicant. The charge was that on 4th May 1948 the applicant intentionally aided Suchandra in forging the withdrawal petition which was filed in the Court of the Appellate Officer Uluberia in Case No. A/40 of 1945-46 under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, the act of forgery being committed in consequence of his abetment. The charge against Suchandra was that he forged that particular withdrawal petition and committed an offence under Section 465, Penal Code.
( 5 ) THE document in this connection is, as I have said, the withdrawal petition. The prosecution case is that one Hari Charan Harabab filed an application in the Kharuberia Debt Settlement Board on behalf of Naresh Dhara for getting possession of land sold at auction at the instance of Haradhan Banerjee. Naresh Dhara is the son of Hari Charan's daughter. The application was dismissed and Hari Charan preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal in the Court of the Appellate Officer. The applicant Pramatha Nath Harabab is the son of Hari Charan's brother and worked as pleader's clerk in that case before the Debt Settlement Board. An appeal was filed against that order dismissing the application of Hari Charan. The petition of withdrawal which is the document concerned in this revision purported to withdraw that appeal. It is the prosecution case that Hari Charan did not authorise Pramatha to put in or file that withdrawal petition. According to the evidence of Hari Charan he did not authorise the applicant Pramatha to withdraw the appeal on his behalf.
( 6 ) THE withdrawal petition is written out by Suchandra Kumar Samanta. It purports to be executed by Hari Charan Harabab as the guardian of minor Naresh Chandra Dhara. That part is also in the handwriting of Suchandra. This withdrawal petition is signed by Bejoy Kumar Roy Chowdhury as B. K. Roy Chowdhury, the pleader , who filed the petition before the Appellate Officer.
( 7 ) THERE are certain facts which are undisputed. They are that so far as the body of the petition is concerned no part of it was written out by the applicant Pramatha. The petition also does not purport to be executed by the applicant or signed by him as the executant of that document. There is an endorsement on the petition which is in the handwriting of the applicant Pramatha. The endorsement is to this effect that Pramatha had authority to file this petition and he is handing over this petition to the lawyer. This portion of the endorsement is signed by Pramatha and bears his signature. The prosecution case is that this document was written out under the advice of Pramatha.
( 8 ) IT is on these facts that the argument is advanced that there has been no forgery and consequently there can be no offence of abetment of forgery. The determination of this question turns on the construction of the words "makes any false document". Section 463, Penal Code, provides inter alia :"whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or with intent to com
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
