IN RE: SIVANANDA MUDALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 471 read with Section 467 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Madura. His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Madura has been dismissed. The finding is that the petitioner altered the Tamil numerals 27 into 32 in Ex. G a registered deed of partition between him and one Kaliyayi, dated 14th September 1889, and filed it in support of his claim in O.S. No. 165 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif s Court of Madura taluk. On that finding the appellant has been convicted of using as genuine a forged valuable security knowing it to be forged.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Vaz for the petitioner is that the petitioner acquired title by prescription to the plot in dispute and that Ex. G was not quite necessary for the support of his title and that he could not have intended to cause wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the alteration of the figures in the document does not amount of forgery. I will assume for the purpose of considering this point that the learned District Judge found that the petitioner had a good title to the disputed plot by adverse possession for over the statutory period. The question is: If a person creates a bona fide claim, does he commit forgery Under Section 463 Indian Penal Code:

(3.) Any material alteration in a document without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently would constitute the making of a false document. The contention is that if a person in order to support a genuine claim, or a bona fide claim, makes a false document he does not do so dishonestly, for according to the definition of " dishonestly " there must be the intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain and that a person cannot be said to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain when he supports a genuine claim. This argument overlooks the fact that a person makes a false document if he fraudulently alters the document or a material part thereof. The word "fraudulently" has been the subject of discussion in various cases. It is defined in Section 25 as doing a thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The intention to defraud is sufficient to bring an alteration within Section 464. Mr. Vaz s argument is that the fraud must be to the detriment of a person. It is not necessary in order to do a thing fraudulently that the person doing it should intend to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain of property. To induce a person to do a thing which he would not do but for the fraud, or omit to do anything which he would do but for the fraud, is to defraud that person.