Supreme Court clarifies forgery under Section 465 IPC: Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 427

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a person be convicted of forgery if they did not create the false document themselves? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a forged Power of Attorney. The court clarified that only the actual maker of a false document can be held liable for forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This judgment highlights the importance of proving who created the forged document to secure a conviction for forgery. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property owned by Mrs. Doris Victor in Valliyoor village. The prosecution alleged that R. Jawaharaj (accused no. 1) conspired with an imposter to create a false Power of Attorney (PoA), impersonating Mrs. Doris Victor. Using this forged PoA, R. Jawaharaj attempted to mortgage Mrs. Victor’s property to Rajapandi (accused no. 2) for Rs. 50,000. Mrs. Doris Victor filed a police complaint after discovering this transaction. She passed away after filing the complaint.

The Judicial Magistrate charged R. Jawaharaj under Sections 420, 423 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Rajapandi under Sections 424 and 465 read with 109 of the IPC. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 465 of the IPC. The Sessions Court upheld this conviction. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, overturned the convictions, stating that the accused were not the makers of the false document and thus could not be convicted of forgery.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate at Valliyoor convicted R. Jawaharaj under Section 465 of the IPC and sentenced him to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. Rajapandi was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offense under Section 465 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The Sessions Court at Tirunelveli upheld these convictions. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, overturned the convictions, relying on the decision in Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Another, 1996 (11) SCC 622, and observing that the requirements of Section 464 of the IPC were not met. The High Court noted that the accused did not make the false document, which is essential for an offense of forgery. Consequently, the High Court also held that the offense under Section 420 of the IPC could not be sustained.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of Sections 463, 464, and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 463, IPC: Defines forgery as “Whoever makes any false documents [or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record,] with intent 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, commits forgery.”
• Section 464, IPC: Explains what constitutes “making a false document.” It states, “A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (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, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”

  Explanation 2 of Section 464 clarifies that “The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.”

• Section 465, IPC: Prescribes the punishment for forgery.

The court emphasized that Section 463 defines forgery, while Section 464 specifies what constitutes making a false document, a key ingredient of forgery. Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offense of forgery. The court noted that to sustain a conviction under Section 465, the ingredients of Section 463 and 464 must be satisfied.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in acquitting the respondents solely because their signatures were not on the forged document.
• Section 464 of the IPC states that anyone who makes a false document is guilty of forgery.
• The respondents created the forged Power of Attorney with the intention of illegally taking the property of Mrs. Doris Victor.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The High Court correctly interpreted Section 464 of the IPC.
• The offense of forgery is not attracted in the absence of the accused being the maker of the false document.
• The appellant has regained the property and the mortgage deed has been cancelled by a civil court.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant argued that anyone involved in the creation of a forged document, even if not the one who signed it, is liable for forgery. This argument attempted to broaden the scope of Section 464 of the IPC. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the “maker” in the context of forgery.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused on the ground that they were not the makers of the forged document and therefore, could not be convicted for the offence of forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Another, 1996 (11) SCC 622* to support the view that the requirements of Section 464 of the IPC must be strictly met for a conviction of forgery.
• The Court cited Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310* to emphasize that “to make” involves a conscious act by the maker, thereby highlighting that forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created or signed the document.
• The Court referred to Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751* to define “making a false document” under Section 464 of the IPC.
• The Court cited Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643* to further clarify the conditions under Section 464, emphasizing that the document must be made with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by someone else or under their authority.
• The Court referred to Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66* to explain the concept of “reasonable doubt,” stating that it must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of penal statutes, emphasizing that a person can only be convicted of forgery if they are the actual maker of the false document. The court highlighted that the definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery,” and both must be read together. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were the makers of the forged document.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings and legal principles. While the court acknowledged that the accused were beneficiaries of the forged document, it emphasized that the law requires proof that they were the makers of the document to convict them of forgery. The court also stressed that suspicion cannot replace legal proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the accused as the makers of the false document.

The court considered the alternative interpretation that anyone involved in the creation of a forged document should be held liable. However, it rejected this interpretation, stating that the plain language of Section 464 of the IPC requires the accused to be the maker of the false document. The court also emphasized that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted.

The court’s decision was that the accused could not be convicted of forgery under Section 465 of the IPC because they were not the makers of the false document. The court stated that “a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same.” The court further observed that “making of a document is different than causing it to be made.” It also noted that “where there exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation.” The court also highlighted the poor investigation in the case, stating that the Investigating Officer did not even try to find the imposter who executed the PoA, leading to a failure of justice.

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Only the actual maker of a false document can be convicted of forgery under Section 465 of the IPC.
• The prosecution must prove that the accused made the false document to secure a conviction for forgery.
• Suspicion, coincidence, or grave doubt cannot replace legal proof in criminal trials.
• Poor investigation and lack of diligence by the investigating agencies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• Individuals affected by forgery have a common law remedy of instituting a suit challenging the validity of the forged document.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is essential to prove that the accused is the maker of the false document as defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of penal statutes and clarifies that those who merely benefit from a forged document cannot be convicted of forgery unless they are the actual makers of the document. This case does not change any previous position of law but rather clarifies and reinforces the existing legal principles related to forgery.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The court clarified that only the maker of a false document can be held liable for forgery under Section 465 of the IPC. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving who created the forged document and highlights the limitations of penal statutes. The court also noted the poor investigation in this case and the importance of thorough and diligent investigation to ensure justice.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 463, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 464, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Forgery
• Criminal Law
• False Document

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for cases of forgery?

A: This judgment clarifies that only the person who actually creates a false document can be convicted of forgery. If you are accused of forgery, the prosecution must prove that you made the false document.

Q: What if I benefit from a forged document but did not create it?

A: According to this judgment, you cannot be convicted of forgery under Section 465 of the IPC if you did not make the false document, even if you benefited from it. However, you may face other legal consequences.

Q: What should I do if I am a victim of forgery?

A: You can file a police complaint and also file a civil suit to challenge the validity of the forged document and seek remedies like cancellation of the document and restoration of property.

Q: What is the role of investigation in forgery cases?

A: The investigating agency must be diligent in finding the actual maker of the forged document. Poor investigation can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Q: What is the significance of Section 464 of the IPC?

A: Section 464 of the IPC defines what constitutes making a false document, which is a key ingredient for the offense of forgery. This judgment emphasizes that Section 464 requires the accused to be the actual maker of the false document.