Merely making a false statement in a document does not constitute forgery under S.464 of the IPC.

1. By writing a false statement in an affidavit or other document does the maker thereof commit the offence of forgery? This question has turned out ultimately to be the decisive one in this appeal filed by a complainant against the order of acquittal. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused has committed the offence under S.465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an affidavit filed before a Returning Officer appointed to hold elections to the Board of Directors of a co-operative society. The trial Magistrate, after preliminary enquiry framed a charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences, but on the conclusion of the trial he passed a verdict of not guilty. Hence this appeal by the complainant with special leave.

2. The complainant is a member of Koodaranhi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short 'the Bank'). Accused was the President of the Committee (Board of Directors, as it is termed differently) of the bank. When the term of the Committee expired, a fresh election was to be held for which notification was published inviting nominations. A Returning Officer for the said purpose was appointed. As per S.28 (2) (b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969,a candidate is disqualified for election to the committee if he is already a member of two or more societies of different types. Every candidate has to file an affidavit along with the nomination paper, swearing, inter alia, to the fact that he is not a member of two or more societies of different type or different types. The accused filed his nomination and along with it filed an affidavit which was sworn to before a gazetted officer. The affidavit which is in a printed form has been marked as Ext. P4 in this case. The fourth clause of the affidavit is to the effect that the deponent is not a member of two or more societies of different type or types. It is alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid statement in Ext. P4 is false since the accused was already the President of the Calicut Wholesale Co-operative Consumers' Store (Consumers Store for short) as well as the Koodaranhi Rural Housing Co-operative Society (Housing Society for short). The prosecution was thus based on the allegation that the complainant made a false statement in Ext. P4 fraudulently with a view to gain the office.

3. The trial court acquitted the accused on two grounds. The first is that accused is not a member of the Consumers' Store but only a delegate thereto from the Housing Society. In this context it is to be mentioned that the Housing Society is one of the affiliated members of the Consumers' Store and such membership can be operated through a delegate sent from the member society. It was proved in the case that the accused was the delegate representing the Housing Society in the Consumers' Store. The other ground on which the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused is that Ext. P4 was not properly proved by examining the officer before whom the affidavit was sworn to. S.68 of the Evidence Act has been referred to by the learned Magistrate in support of his reasoning on this score.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the reasoning made by the learned Magistrate on both the aforesaid grounds. It is pointed out that though the accused is not an ordinary member of the society, he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Consumers' Store. However, it is not disputed that the accused is only a delegate to the Consumers' Store from the Housing Society. But, according to the counsel, it is not necessary that one should be an ordinary member of the Society to become a member of the Committee. Regarding the second ground, learned counsel contended that S.68 of the Evidence Act has no application since the affidavit in question is not required by law to be attested. Attestation is different from authentication and when an officer authenticates an affidavit, he only declares that the deponent has sworn to before him, contended the counsel. Hen