1. This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on appellant Kamlesh s/o Kanaiyalal Jain by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.138/2008 vide judgment dated 15.12.2008 whereby, learned ASJ found the present appellant guilty under sections 419 and 468 of IPC and sentenced him for two years R.I. and three years R.I., in case he makes default in payment of amount of fine respectively.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the present appellant presented himself as security for the accused in Criminal Case No.165/2008 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sailana, Distt. Ratlam. He filed a Krun-pustika, on which, his photograph is affixed. However, on being found suspicious by the learned Magistrate, he sent the Krun-pustika for an inquiry to Tahsildar, Sailana. The Tahsildar conducted an inquiry and found that the photograph affixed in the Krun-pustika which was of the present appellant and was not of the original farmer Kalu s/o Rupa Bhil. At the relevant time, the said farmer Kalu s/o Rupa Bhil had already died and his legal heirs were recorded in the revenue records. According to the inquiry, the present appellant affixed his photograph on the original Krun-pustika of Kalu Bhil and presented himself before the Magistrate as Kalu Bhil and thereby committed cheating by personalization. It is also alleged that he forged Krun-pustika by affixing his photograph on it for the purpose of cheating by personalization.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under sections 205, 419, 468 and 471 of IPC. However, the learned ASJ found that for prosecution under sections 205 and 471 of IPC, a complaint by the concerning Court was necessary under section 195 of CrPC. As no such complaint was filed, he acquitted the accused from the charges under these sections. However, the learned ASJ found him guilty under section 419 for cheating by personalization and under section 468 of IPC for committing forgery for the purpose of cheating and imposed the sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment against him, present appeal is filed by the present appellant.

4. The defence of the present appellant before the lower Court was that he was falsely implicated in this case. He did not know the procedure of the Court. He was taken by some people to the Court asking him that a security was to be given for the accused. Believing that he was only giving a security for the accused. he appeared before the Magistrate and according to him, he committed no other crime.

5. The facts of the case is not challenged by the present appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant only argues that though he does not challenge his conviction under section 419 of IPC, he challenges his conviction under section 468 of IPC on the ground that no forgery was committed as according to the inquiry report of the Tahsildar itself, the Krun-pustika was not forged. It was the original Krun-pustika belonging to the farmer Kalu s/o Rupa Bhil and the only allegation against the present appellant was that he affixed his photograph on the Krun-pustika. To decide, whether the forgery was committed in the factual background of the case, it is to be seen, whether the ingredients of section 464 of IPC which provides necessary ingredients for the offence of making a false document, are present in the present case. Section 464 of IPC reads as under :

464 Making a false document. - [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record - First - Who dishonestly or fradulently -

(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;

(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the (electronic signature),

with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document