GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gulab Singh petitioner was brought to trial for the offences under Sections 409 and 463, Indian Penal Code, for misappropriation of certain amount belonging to his employer, Municipal Committee Jaito, and for forging some entries in the record of the Committee in order to cheat the Committee. The Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot acquitted him of the charge under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, but convicted him under Section 468, Indian Penal Code, by his judgment dated February 28, 1981, and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. i,000,/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) The charge framed against the petitioner is in the following terms: That you Gulab Singh from 27.4.1976 to 10.8.1976 at Jaitu, forged receipts given to Deep Chand, Maman Chand and Manohar Lal and made false and forged entries in rent demand and collection register of Municipal Committee Jaitu with the intention to cheat Municipal Committee of the total amount of Rs. 890/-and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.'

(3.) The only argument laboured with some persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that the allegation on which the charge under Section 468, Indian Penal Code is based relates only to false entries in the Demand and Collection Register which does not fall within the ambit of Section 468 Indian Penal Code which contemplates forgery by making a false document as provided by Section 464 Indian Penal Code which is in the following terms: A person is said to -make a false document-First-Who 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, seated 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 knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed. The learned counsel has emphasised the distinction between making an incorrect document and Tmaking a false documentT. He then proceeded to say that assuming that the petitioner having made entries in the Demand and Collection Register of the Municipal Committee made a false document, yet the forgery alleged to have been committed by him does not fall within the language of Section 468 Indian Penal Code.