DORAISWAMI REDDIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petnrs. in this case, the president & clerk of a co-operative stores in Vadipatti, have been convicted under Section 477(a), I. P. C. read with Section 109, I. P. C. for falsifying the accounts of the stores of Vadipatti by making two false & fraudulent entries in the account books of the stores (Ex. P. 12) regarding two false & fraudulent bills (Exs. P. 13 & P. 14 dated 16-2-1949 & 15-1949) about the alleged sale of cane jaggery & ground-nut on these days when really these things had been sold away before 27-1-1949 & the bills (EXS. p. 13 & p. 14) were bogus & false ones not relating to any genuine sales to the parties mentioned, or for the sums mentioned, or for the qualities mentioned, or on the date mentioned. They were sentenced by the First Addl. First Class Mag. Madura, to pay fines of Rs. 500 & Rs. 200 respectively. On appeal the learned Sess. J. of Madura reduced the fine on accused 1 to Rs. 400 & on accused 2, a clerk under his control & subject to his orders, to Rs. 50.

(2.) I have perused the entire records & heard the learned counsel for the petnrs. & the learned Public Prosecutor contra. Mr. Govind Swamina-than, for the petnrs. conceded that the two bills were not true bills, & were bogus & false ones, but stated that nobody had been defrauded of property, or caused wrongful loss eventually & that every member of the stores & the stores itself had received all the moneys due to him. He argued that, though the bills were not true & genuine ones & were indeed false ones, there was no fraud as there was no deprivation of property, & therefore there could be no conviction for an offence under Section 477(a). I cannot agree. Section 477(a) only requires the falsification of accounts with intent to defraud. It does not require any deprivation of property. In fact, fraud means what it says, namely, making a person believe what is not true with intent to cause some injury of some kind in property or reputation to him or to suppress some previous fraudulent transaction & action about it. It has been held by a F. B. of the Calcutta H. Ct. in Queen Empress v. Abbas Ali, 25 Cal. 512, as follows:

(3.) A special argument was urged on behalf of petnr. 2. viz. that he was only a clerk under the orders of petnr. 1 & so, had to make those, false & fraudulent entries in the account book from fear. The law allows fear as a reason for acquittal in such offences only if there is fear of instant death or instant grievous hurt apprehended to result in instant death, which is not alleged or proved in this case. So the conviction of petnr. 2 also was correct. He was given sufficient indulgence, in the matter of sentence, after considering the above circumstances. Therefore his conviction & sentence are confirmed & the petn. is dismissed as regards him.