9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (11) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licy was due to expire sometime in April, 1953. On a request made by Dewan Ram Swarup, the said policy was transferred in the name of Nalini. In that connection, Dr. Vimla visited the Insurance Company's Office and signed the proposal form as Nalini. Subsequently, she also filed two claims on the ground that the car met with accidents. In connection with these claims, she signed the claim forms as Nalini and also the receipts acknowledging the payments of the compensation money as Nalini. On a complaint made by the company alleging fraud on the part of Dr. Vimla and her husband, the police made investigation and prosecuted Dr. Vimla and her husband Siri Chand Kaviraj in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class Delhi. The 'Magistrate committed Dr. Vimla and her husband to Sessions to take their trial under ss. 120-B, 419, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions judge held that no case had been made out against the accused under any one of those sections and on that finding, acquitted both of them. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and the appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of that court comprising Falshaw and Chopra,JJ. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had never had the intention to cause injury to the insurance company and as on the facts found no injury had been caused at all to the company, the appellant could not be found guilty under the said sections. Before we consider the decisions cited at the Bar it would be convenient to look at the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Section 463 : Whoever makes any false document or part of a document 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 : A person is said to make a false document- First--Which dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document/or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry enough. So too, if the expresssion fraudulently' were to be held to involve the element of injury to the person or persons deceived, it would be reasonable to assume that the injury should be something other than pecuniary or economic loss. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice versa, it need not necessarily be so. Should we hold that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived, it would be appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of dishonestly that to satisfy the definition of 'fraudulently it would be enough if there was a non- economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived. Both need not co-exist. Let us now consider some of the leading text book writers and, decisions to ascertain the meaning of the word fraudulently . The classic definition of the word fraudulently is found in Steplien's History of the Criminal law of England, Vol. 2, at p. 121 and it reads I shall not attempt to construct a definition which will meet every case which might be suggested, but there is little danger in saving that whenever the words fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action. The English decisions have been elaborately considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Welhant ((1960) 1 All. E. R. 260, 264, 266.). In that case, hire-purchase finance companies advanced money on a hire-purchase form and agreement and on credit-sale agreements witnessed by the accused. The form and agreements were forgeries The accused was charged with offences of Uttering forged documents with intent to defraud. It was not proved that he had intended to cause any loss of once to the finance companies. His intention had been by deceit to induce any person who was charged with the duty of seeing that the credit restrictions then current were observed to act in a way in which lie would not act if he had known the true facts, namely, not to prevent the advancing of large sums of money exceeding the limits allowed by law It, the time. The Court held that the said intention amounted to intend to defraud. Hilbery, J., speaking for the court, pointed out the distinction between deceit and defraud and came to the conclusion that ,to defraud is to deprive by dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived but it does not follow that A intended to defraud B. But, as it seems to me, if A tells B a lie intending that B should do something which A conceives to be to his own benefit or advantage, 'and which, if done, would be to the loss or detriment of B, A intends to defraud B. The learned Chief justice indicated his line of thought, which has some bearing on the question now raised, by the following observations : I may observe, however, in this connection that by s. 24 of the Code a person does a thing dishonestly who' does it with the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss. It is not necessary that there should be an intention to cause both. On the analogy of this definition, it might be said that either an intention to secure a benefit or advantage on the one hand, or to cause loss or detriment on the other, by means of deceit, is an intent to defraud. But, he found in that case that both the elements were present. Benson,J., pointed out at p. 114 : I am of opinion that the act was fraudulent not merely by reason of the advantage which the accused intended to secure for himself' by means of his' deceit, but also by reason of the injur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrow any light on the other question whether advantage to the deceiver without a corresponding loss to the deceived would satisfy the second ingredient of the expression intent to defraud . A division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sanjiv Ratnappa v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1932 Bom.545, 550.) had also occasion to consider the scope of the expression fraudulently in s. 464 of the Penal Code. The court held that for an act to be fraudulent there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Adverting to the argument that an advantage secured by the deceiver would constitute fraud Broomfield, J., observed thus I think in view of the Bombay decisions to which I have referred we must hold that that is an essential ingredient in the definition of forgery. In the great majority of cases, the point is not very material............... But there many occasionally be a case in which the element of loss or injury is absent and I think the present is such a case. This decision therefore does not accept the view of White C. J., of the Madras High Court. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court,, in Emperor v. Abdul had also expressed its view on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
