Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 63
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hemeon
: KRISHNARAO RAOJIRAO AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE, MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 446 of 1951
Decided on : 23-04-1952
W R Pendharkar, Y P Verma, Advocates
The intention to cause damage or injury is the gist of the offence under Section 463 of the Penal Code, and it is immaterial whether damage, injury, or fraud is actually caused or not.
Headnote:
FORGERY - S. 467, 471, PENAL CODE - RENT NOTE - ANTE-DATED - USED AS GENUINE - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Krishnarao filed a civil suit against Bhagwan for possession of a house and rent. Bhagwan contested the claim, alleging that the rent note was ante-dated and forged. Krishnarao withdrew the suit and filed a fresh one, obtaining a decree for possession. Bhagwan applied for prosecution of Krishnarao, Narayanrao, and Laxman for forgery and using a forged document as genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rent note was ante-dated and forged, and that the applicants acted in collusion to create it. The court held that the applicants were guilty of forgery and using a forged document as genuine.
Issues: Whether the rent note was ante-dated and forged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicants were guilty of forgery and using a forged document as genuine because they intended to cause damage or injury to Bhagwan by creating the false rent note. The court also held that Krishnarao was liable under Section 471 of the Penal Code because he dishonestly used the forged rent note to support his claim for rent.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the convictions of the applicants but modified their sentences. Krishnarao was fined Rs. 400, Narayanrao was fined Rs. 200, and Laxman was fined Rs. 100. In default of payment, they were to undergo 6 months, 4 months, and 2 months rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Hemeon, J—The applicants Krishnarao, Narayanrao and Laxman were convicted and each sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- by the Section 30 Magistrate, Washim, under Ss. 467, and 471, S. 467, and S. 467 read with S. 109, Penal Code respectively; and on appeal the Sessions Judge, Akola, affirmed the convictions and maintained Krishnarao's sentence, but reduced the sentence of Narayan to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-and that of Laxman to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.
2. There was a dispute between Krishnarao, who is Narayanrao's brother, and Bhagwan (P. W. 1) concerning a house in Wai, Washim 'taluq'; and on 10-10-1946 Krishnarao filed Civil Suit No. 468-A of 1946 in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Washim, for possession of it and for Rs. 108/- on account of rent for the period 30-9-1943 to 30-9-1946 against Bhagwan and his brothers, Narayan was impleaded as a Defendant on the grounds that the contract of rent was negotiated by him and he had stood surety for the tenant. The rent note Ex. P-1, dated 30-7-1943, was filed by Krishnarao in support of his claim. After Bhagwan abjured the execution of the rent note and contested the claim, Krishnarao sought and obtained permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh one. He thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 187-A of 1947 in the same Court for possession of the house and obtained. a decree therefor. The appeal filed by Bhagwan and his brothers was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Washim.
3. After the withdrawal of the earlier sun Bhagwan applied for the prosecution of the applicants on the grounds that the rent note was ante-dated, forged and used as genuine; and when an inquiry was made under Section 476, Criminal P. C., the application was allowed and a complaint against the applicants under Ss. 465, 467 and 471, Penal Code was made to the First Class Magistrate, Washim. The prosecution case was, shortly stated, to the effect that as the printed form of the rent note was issued from the Rajasthan Press, Akola, in 1945, it could not be used in 1943 and that all 3 applicants acted in collusion as it was written by Laxman, was in Krishnarao's favour and indicated that Narayan had secured the house for Bhagwan and stood surety for him.
4. XXX XXX XXX
5. XXX XXX XXX
6. XXX XXX XXX
7. XXX XXX XXX
8. XXX XXX XXX
9. (His Lordship discussed the evidence. observed that it was abundantly clear that the object of the preparation of the rent note was to show that it had been executed on 30-7-1943 and that from that date Bhagwan had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3/- 'per mensem' and concluded that the conclusion that the creation of the rent note was due to collusion between the brothers Krishnarao and Narayanrao as well as Laxman is inescapable.)
10. The gist of the offence under Section 463 Penal Code is the intention to cause damage or injury; and it is immaterial whether damage injury or fraud is actually caused or not:- Kalyanmal v. Emperor, 1937 AIR(Nag) 89. It was also held in - Empress v. Dhumum Kazee, that even if a man has a legal claim or title to property, he is guilty of forgery if he counterfeits documents in order to support it; and in - 'Sivananda Mudali In re, Devadoss J. said that the question whether a document was a false dacument or not did not depend upon the adjudication of the Court on the claim or title which was intended to be propped up by the false document.
11. Ex. P-1 was undoubtedly a valuable security as defined by S. 30, Penal Code; and Krishnarao and Narayanrao were liable under Section 467 ibid', while Laxman was liable under that section read with Section 109 ibid'. Krishnarao was also liable under Section 471 ibid'. The conviction under that section was set aside in - Kalidin v. Emperor, 1919 AIR(All) 387 because the accused had not behaved dishonestly or
