What is the difference between Fabricating False Evidence and For­gery? (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Z obliges X, a friend, with a loan of Rs. 1,000 which X after­wards denies and refuses to pay back. Z institutes a suit for the recovery of this amount but finding he has no evidence, except his own testimony, asks B to help him. B prepares a document pur­porting to be a promissory note executed by X. Z produces the document in Court and succeeds in getting his claim decreed.

What offence, if any, have Z and B committed?

The essential ingredients of fabricating false evidence are:

1. Causing any circumstance to exist, or making (a) any false entry in a book or record or (b) making a document containing a false statement.

Image Source: purpologydotcom.files.wordpress.com

2. Doing one of the above acts with the intention that it may appear in evidence in—

(a) A judicial proceeding, or

(b) A proceeding taken by law before a public servant or an arbi­trator.

3. Doing such act with the intention that it may cause any person who, in such proceeding, is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion; and

4. The formation of opinion should be touching any point mate­rial to the result of such proceeding.

Illustrations:

(i) A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.

(ii) A makes false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a court of justice. A has fabricated false evidence.

The ingredients of the offence of forgery are:

(1) The making of a false document or part of it;

(2) Such making should be with intent.

(a) To cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or

(b) To support any claim or title; or

(c) To cause any person to part with property; or

(d) To enter into any express or implied contract; or

(e) To commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

Illustration:

A has letter of credit upon B for Rs. 10,000 written by Z. A, in order to defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000 and makes the sum 1, 00,000 intending that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.

Problems:

A. Discuss i. forgery has been committed in the following cases:

(1) Z’s will contain these words: “I direct that all my proper­ties be equally divided between A and B.” C adds his own name intending that it may be believed that Z’s property may be divided between A, B and C?

(2) A signs his own name to a cheque intending that it may be believed that the cheque was drawn by another person of the same name.

(1) C has committed forgery in the case because without any lawful authority and dishonestly and fraudulently C has altered the will of A. He has thus made a false document within the meaning of S. 464, I.P.C. with an intention to cause damage or injury to the legatees A and B and to support his own claim along with them within the definition of forgery as defined in S. 463, I.P.C., and he must, therefore, be held to have committed forgery.

(2) In this case also A has committed forgery and made a false document intending to deceive others. The case falls clearly within illustration (a) to Explanation 1 of Section 464, I.P.C.

B. A writes a letter and signs it with B’s name without B’s authority certifying that A is a man of character and is in dis­tressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Is A, guilty of any offence? Give reasons.

A is guilty of forgery.

The reason is that he executed a letter, purporting to be signed by B, although it is not so signed, knowing that it is not signed by B, with a view to make a wrongful gain, that is dishonestly and to cause Z and others to part with property by virtue of that letter.

C. (a) X a student of Allahabad applied to the Director of Public Instruction for permission to appear as a private candidate for the Matriculation Examination in 1975 and sent his admission fee.

According to the rules then in force X was required to pro­duce to the Director of Public Instruction a certificate signed by the headmaster of a recognized high school that he was of good behaviour and had reached his sixteenth years. X fabricated the signature of the headmaster of Y school at Allahabad to the cer­tificate and forwarded it to the Director of Public Instruction.

The fraud was discovered by the D.P.I, immediately upon receipt of the certificate and X was not allowed to sit at the examination. What offence has X committed? (b) A falsely represented himself to be B at a University examination, got a hall ticket under B’s name, headed and signed answer papers to questions with B’s name. What offence has A committed, (c) A, a public servant in charge of certain valuable documents was required to produce those documents, and being unable to do so, he fabricated and produced similar documents. What offence, if any, has A, commit­ted?

(a) X has committed the offence of forgery punishable under Section 465; I.P.C. X fraudulently signed a document with the inten­tion of causing it to be believed that the document was signed by the headmaster knowing that it was not signed by him. He thus made a false document within the meaning of Section 464; I.P.C. (b) A is guilty of forgery (Sec. 463) and cheating by personating (Sec. 416).

(c) A as a public servant in charge of certain valuable documents was required to produce those documents. Since he fabricated and pro­duced similar documents with the intention of screening himself from punishment he is guilty of fabricating false evidence under Section 192, I.P.C.

D. Certain sums of money were received at a Munsifi for pay­ment into the Government treasury, but they were never paid. The Accountant of that court did not enter these sums in the challan register. But after the commencement of an inquiry into the matter, he for the purpose of concealing the non-payment made false entries in the register showing that those sums had been paid in the credit of the Collector. What offence, if any, has the Accountant committed?

The Accountant is guilty of an offence under Section 477-A. That section provides that whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant willfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, which belongs to or is in the possession of the employer, is liable to punishment with imprisonment for the term which may extend to seven years and/or fine.

The Accountant in making the false entries was in reality further­ing the fraud which had been committed upon the Government and as such he acted fraudulently and was guilty of falsification of accounts.