1962 (11) TMI 58 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and interpretation of "fraudulently" under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Whether the appellant's actions constituted forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Interpretation of "Fraudulently" under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term "fraudulently" as used in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The court examined the definitions provided in Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC and concluded that the term "fraudulently" involves two essential elements: deceit and injury. The court noted that deceit alone does not constitute fraud; there must also be an intention to cause injury or a risk of possible injury to the person deceived. The court referenced various legal texts and precedents, including Stephen's History of the Criminal Law of England and Kenny's Outline of Criminal Law, to support this interpretation. The court also considered English decisions, such as R. v. Welhant, which clarified that the injury need not be economic and could include non-economic harm such as deprivation of a right.

2. Whether the Appellant's Actions Constituted Forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code:
The court examined the facts of the case to determine if the appellant's actions met the criteria for forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. The appellant, Dr. Vimla, had purchased a car in the name of her minor daughter Nalini and signed various documents and claim forms using Nalini's name. The court found that while Dr. Vimla's actions involved deceit, they did not result in any advantage to her or any injury to the insurance company. The court noted that the insurance company would have acted the same way even if the car had been registered in Dr. Vimla's name. The court concluded that since there was no intention to cause injury or actual injury to the insurance company, the appellant's actions did not constitute forgery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the refund of any fine paid by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the term "fraudulently" under Section 464 IPC requires both deceit and an intention to cause injury. In this case, while the appellant's actions involved deceit, there was no intention to cause injury or actual injury to the insurance company. Therefore, the appellant was not guilty of forgery under Sections 467 and 468 IPC. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.