JIBRIAL DIWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, we called upon Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra requiring him make submission to support the judgment under appeal. He candidly admitted that he was unable to do so. We appreciate the fair stance he has adopted. In support of the same, we record our reasons.

(2.) Shri Azhar Hussain, PW 2 was a Minister at the relevant time in the State of Maharashtra. He had planned a cultural show whereat some artists were invited. The case of the prosecution is that two letters Exh. 28 and Exh. 29 were prepared on the letter head of the Minister, whereupon invitations were written to invite Raja Murad, and Javed Khan, PWs. These letters were allegedly forged for these did not bear the signature of the Minister. The show was held on the day scheduled. The invitees came on the basis of those forged letters. Later, a controversy was raised. The matter was investigated by the CBI. Charges were laid against the appellant as also one Patel, accused No. 2. The second accused stands acquitted by the trial Court. His acquittal has been maintained by the High Court. The allegation against the acquitted accused was that he had forged those letters. That part of the prosecution case on account of the acquittal of the second accused has become sealed. The role of the appellant was that he had delivered those two forged letters to the recipients. For that act, even though he was acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court has convicted him for offence under Section 417, Section 471 read with Section 465, IPC and awarded him sentences as disclosed in the judgment under appeal.

(3.) It bears repetition that the appellant was not the forgerer of those documents. Section 471 enjoins that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 465 provides that whoever commits forgery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Now the words dishonsestly and fraudulently have been defined respectively in Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly has been defined to mean that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. The word fraudulently has been defined to mean that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. This Court in Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U. P., AIR 1966 SC 523, has explained the words intent to defraud as being not synonymous with the words intent to deceive. It requires some action resulting in a disadvantage which but for the deception the person defrauded would have avoided. Here by the delivery of forged letters, there is neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another. The act of the appellant could not thus be termed to have been done dishonestly. Likewise the appellant cannot be said to have any intention to defraud because his action resulted in no disadvantage to any one which but for the deception the person defrauded would have acted otherwise. The basic ingredients of the act done dishonestly or fraudulently being missing, the charge under Section 471 read with 465, IPC was totally misplaced and the High Court fell into an error in convicting the appellant on those charges.