G.S.Bansal Vs. The Delhi
Administration [1963] INSC 64 (21 March 1963)
21/03/1963 SUBBARAO, K. SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL,
RAGHUBAR MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: 1963 AIR 1577 1964 SCR (2) 470
ACT:
Criminal Trial-Forgery of valuable
security-Money due to accused--Obtaining by committing forgery-Intention, if
dishonest and fraudulent-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 24, 25,
463, 464, 467.
HEADNOTE:
J, the father of the appellant, had purchased
Post Office National Savings Certificates of Rs. 250/in the name of the
Controller of Rationing and had deposited them with him as security for his
ration depot. Subsequently, j applied for release of the security as he had
transferred the ration depot. But before the security could be released j died.
The appellant put the signatures of j on the
relevant documents, attested them himself, got the securities transferred in
the name of j and obtained the money from the Post Office. He was tried and
convicted under s. 467 Indian Penal Code for forging a valuable security. The
appellant contended that 'he was not guilty of forgery as he had received money
which was due to him as the sole heir of his father and that he had gained no
advantage to himself nor caused any injury to another.
471 Held, that the appellant was rightly
convicted under s. 467 Indian Penal Code. By adopting the device he saved
himself the expense of obtaining a succession certificate and gained an
economic advantage. Further, he relieved himself of the trouble of satisfying
the Rationing Authority and the Post Master General that he was the sole heir
of his father and gained an uneconomic advantage. He had thus made the false
document both dishonestly and fraudulently.
Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration, [1963]
Supp. 2 S. C. R. 585 distinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal A
peal No. 219 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated January 7, 1960, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi,
in Criminal Appeal No. 45-D of 1959.
A. S. R. Chari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C.
Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Frank Anthony and R. N. Sachthey, for the
respondent.
1963. March 21. The judgment of the Court was
delivered by SUBBA RAO. J.-This appeal by special leave is against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Punjab, Circuit Bench, Delhi, confirming those
of the Additional Sessions judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant under s. 467
of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of
the Court and to a fine of Rs. 250/-.
The appellant is an Under Secretary, now
under suspension, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi, and is the son of janki Pershad. janki Pershad held a ration depot in
Delhi. In the year 1948 janki Pershad purchased 472 three Post Office National
Savings Certificates of the face value of Rs. 250/-in the name of the
Controller or Rationing, Delhi, and deposited the same with him as security. On
February 21, 1952, Janki Pershad transferred the ration depot in favour of his
grandson, S. K. Bansal, the son of the appellant. Thereafter, on April 16,
1952, janki Pershad applied to the rationing authority for the release of the
said security on the ground that he had transferred the concerned ration depot
in favour of his grandson who had given a fresh cash security of his own.
Before the said security given by him was
released, janki Pershad died on June 1, 1952. On July 1, 1952, the rationing
authority wrote a letter to janki Pershad, not knowing that he had died, informing
him that the security deposited by him had been released and that he should get
the pledged certificates transferred in his favour by filling in the prescribed
form sent with that letter and presenting the same along with the certificates
returned at the post office. The prosecution case is that, as janki Prashad had
by that time died, the appellant filled in the said form for transfer, affixed
the signature purporting it to be that of his father, attested the said
signature, and affixed the stamp of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, beneath his own signature of attestation, and presented the said form
and the certificates at the Post Office. Though the clerk at the Post Office
had some doubts as to the genuineness of the signature of Janki Pershad, on an
assurance given by the appellant, he issued fresh certificates in the name of
Janki Pershad on July 12, 1952.
On September 3, 1952, the appellant signed
the three certificates on their back as janki Pershad in token of their
cancellation and placed his own attestation and stamp of his office thereon. He
gave a letter of authority in favour of Bhawani Shankar, a daftri attached to
his 'Office, for cashing the same. Bhawani Shankar presented the certificates
at the Post Office and received Rs. 275/in payment thereof, on his 473
furnishing the necessary receipts The encashed amount was paid to the
appellant.
On September 8, 1956, the Magistrate, First
Class, Delhi, framed charges against the appellant under s. 467 of the Indian
Penal Code and committed him for trial before the Court of Sessions. On
February 2, 1959, the Additional Sessions judge, Delhi, found him guilty under
s. 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appeal
filed to the High Court was dismissed on january 7, 1960. Hence the present
appeal.
The following were the charges framed against
the appellant "Firstly, that you between 9th July, 1952 and 3rd September,
1952 at Delhi dishonestly or fraudulently attested the signatures of janki
Pershad Bansal deceased which were forged by you on the ',-jack of the
application for transfer of National Savings Certificates from one person to
another and thereby authorised the Post Master, General Post Office., Delhi, to
transfer National Savings Certificates........................ and that you
thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 IPC and within the
cognizance of the Court of Sessions." "Secondly, that you between 9th
July, 1952 and 3rd September, 1952 at' Delhi dishonestly or fraudulently in
order to obtain delivery of a sum of RS. 275/-attested the signatures of janki
Pershad deceased on National Savings Certificates........ which said signatures
were forged by you and forged a letter of authority purporting to have been
written by the deceased janki Pershad Bansal and thereby obtained payment of
Rs. 275/from Post Master, G. P. O., Delhi, through Bhawani Shankar on the basis
of the above National Savings Certificates fraudulently or dishonestly 474
discharged by you and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 467 IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions,
Delhi." The appellant denied that he forged the signature of his father in
the application, in the certificates or in the letter of authority. He also
denied to have gone to the Post Office and got the fresh certificates, or to
have deputed Bhawani Shankar for encashment of the said certificates. Further,
he disowned his own signature of attestation of the alleged signature of Janki
pershad and denied to have affixed his office stamp on any of them. In short,
his defence was a total denial of the prosecution case. The learned Additional
Sessions judge, after considering the entire evidence placed before him, held
that both the charges had been substantiated and therefore found the appellant
guilty under s. 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
On appeal, Chopra J., reviewed the entire
evidence over again and came to the conclusion that though it had not been
established that the, signature on the application form was forged by the
appellant, there was a clear and convincing evidence that the appellant
attested the same. On the second charge, the learned Judge found that the
alleged signatures of janki Pershad on the back of the three certificates and
the writting of the signature on the letter of authority were all forged by the
appellant. On this finding, he dismissed the appeal.
There are, therefore, concurrent findings of
fact that the appellant put the signature of his father on the relevant documents,
attested them and got the securities transferred in the name of his father and
received the money from the Post Office. The said findings being findings of
fact based upon relevant evidence, following the usual practice of this Court,
we accept them.
475 Even so, Mr. Chari, learned counsel for
the appellant, contends that on the said findings the appellant is not guilty
of forgery as defined under s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code, for, it is said,
he received the money which was admittedly due to him as a sole heir of his
father and, therefore, he did. not either gain an advantage for himself or
cause any injury to another, and that the said point was directly and fully
covered by a recent decision of this Court in Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration
(1).
Mr. Anthony, learned counsel appearing for
the State, does not accept either the factual or the legal position advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant. He contends that on the facts found, the
appellant, when he put the signatures of his father on the relevant documents,
had the clear intention to secure an economic advantage to himself inasmuch as
he resorted to the device adopted by him in order to save himself the trouble
and expense of obtaining a succession certificate.
The conflicting arguments on the application
of Dr, Vimla 's case (1), to the facts of the present case can be better
appreciated if the facts of the resent case are clearly borne in mind. If a
person who has given postal certificates as security to a department by taking
them in the name of the said department dies, his heir can get the said amount
by following two procedures, namely, (1) after obtaining a succession
certificate, he can apply to the department concerned to release the security
and then apply to the postal department for getting the certificates cashed,
and (2) if the current value of the certificates at the time of the death of
the holder does not exceed Rs. 5,000/he can, after the expiry of three months
from the date of the death of the holder, satisfy the Post Master General that
he is the sole heir of the holder and after making the relevant (1) [1963]
Supp, 2 S.C.R, 585.
476 declaration recover the said money. In
one case he has to incur expenses for obtaining the succession certificate and
in the other lie has to wait for three months and thereafter produce evidence
to the satisfaction of the Post Master General that he is the sole heir of the
deceased holder of the certificates. In the present case, the appellant
attested the signature of janki Pershad on the reverse of the application form,
for the transfer of the Post Office National Savings Certificates in the name
of his father, got fresh certificates issued in the name of his father, signed
the name of Janki Pershad on the back of the three certificates in token of
their cancellation, placed his own attestation and stamp of his office thereon,
gave a letter of authority in favour of Bhawani Shanker as though it was given
by janki Pershad and received the money from the Post Office. By this process
he got not only the certificates which stood in the name of the Ration
Department transferred in the name of his deceased father but also received the
money payable to his father. Two steps were involved in the process, one was to
get the certificates in the name of the Ration Department to be transferred in
the name of his father and the second was to receive the money payable to his
deceased father. As the father died before the certificates were transferred in
his name by the ration Department, the appellant should have taken steps by
informing that fact to the said authority and getting an application from the
said authority to the Postal authority for transferring the said certificates
in his favour. The rationing authority might not have given such an application
to the Postal authority unless a succession certificate was produced by him. No
rules have been placed before us which enable the rationing authority to agree
for the transfer of the security given to it to a person claiming to be the heir
of the owner thereof without the production of any such certificate. ID regard
to the second process, the appellant would not have been able to get the money
from the postal department 477 within three months without a succession
certificate and thereafter without producing necessary evidence of his heir ship
to the satisfaction of the Post Master General.
This process entails delay, for the appellant
can only apply to the postal authority after the expiry of three months and
thereafter the payment depends upon the satisfaction of the officer concerned,
which may entail further delay or even rejection. Be it as it may, on the facts
his intention at the time when he made out the false documents was to short circuit
the alternative procedure open to him and receive the money without going
through the expense and trouble involved therein. Section 463 of the Indian
Penal Code reads :
"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 of the said Code reads "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, 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 knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or
executed; or Secondly. Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or 478 otherwise, alters a document in any
material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or
by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such
alternation; or...........
A person, therefore, will be guilty of
forgery if he dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention
mentioned in s. 464 of the Code. Under "Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrong full loss to another
person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'." And under s. 25 thereof,
"A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with
intent to defraud but not otherwise." On the said facts we have no doubt
that the appellant had made the false documents with an intention to cause
wrongful gain to himself, for by adopting the aforesaid device he secured for
himself a gain as otherwise lie would have had to incur some expense for
obtaining a succession certificate. Even on the assumption that lie would have
received the money after satisfying the rationing authority and the Post Master
General, he secured an advantage by resorting to the said device, as he was relieved
of the trouble of satisfying the rationing authority and the postal authority
that he was the sole heir of his father and avoided the risk of their refusal,
which would have entailed further delay. In that event he had secured an
uneconomic advantage: in the former case he had made the false documents
dishonestly and in the latter case fraudulently.
In either case he committed forgery, within
the meaning of s. 463 of the Indian Penal Code. 479 The decision of this Court
in Dr. Vimla's case (1), is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Dr.
Vimla's case (1), this Court, after considering the relevant decisions on the
question, stated the legal position thus :
'The expression 'defraud' involves two
elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something
other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or
immovable, or of Money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a noneconomic
or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost
always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where
there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to
the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." There., Dr. Vimla
purchased a car in the name of her minor daughter Nalini, got the insurance
policy taken on the car transferred in the name of Nalini by signing the
necessary documents as Nalini and, when the car met with an accident, obtained
the compensation money by signing the name of Nalini in the claim form and
receipt; in short Dr. Vimla put through the relevant transaction in the name of
her minor daughter for reasons best known to herself, that is to say, the real
owner of the car was Dr. Vimla and she only used the name of her minor
daughter. Neither she got any economic or noneconomic advantage by making the
said false documents nor the Insurance Company incurred any economic or
non-economic loss by her so doing. Therefore, this Court held that she was not
guilty of forgery. But in the present case, the appellant clearly secured an
economic advantage by making the false documents by (i) saving the money which
(1) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 585.
480 he would have otherwise spent in
obtaining a succession certificate, and (ii) getting the money belonging to his
father as his heir. Even otherwise he secured a noneconomic advantage as he got
himself relieved of the trouble of getting the certificate of proof to the
satisfaction of the rationing authority and the Post Master General of his
credential to receive the money. He was, therefore, guilty of making the false
documents both dishonestly and fraudulently. The High Court is right in coming
to the conclusion which it did.
ln the result, the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
