Skip to content


Aher Samat Bhima Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1967CriLJ1717
AppellantAher Samat Bhima
RespondentState of Gujarat
Excerpt:
- .....not paid on 9-2.1960 but much earlier.2. section 464 of the penal code, which relates to making false documents, so far as relevant, reads as follows:first -who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signa, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mart 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 be knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; orsecondly- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or 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.....
Judgment:

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The appellant, who was original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1965, was convicted under a, 467 of the Penal Code. The case against him was that as the Secretary of a co-operative society he had received moneys on certain dates and in order to prevent the authorities from knowing that be had not credited the said moneys he prepared counter-foils on certain subsequent dates to show that the moneys had been received on those subsequent dates. To give an instance, he prepared a counter-foil of a receipt in respect of an amount of Rs. 300 as having been received on 9.2-1960, while the prosecution case is that in fact the money was not paid on 9-2.1960 but much earlier.

2. Section 464 of the Penal Code, which relates to making false documents, so far as relevant, reads as follows:

First -Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signa, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mart 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 be knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or 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 alteration; or

Thirdly ...

The prosecution case is that the counter-foil of the receipt is a false document, because the date put on the counter-foil by the appellant does not correspond with the date of the original payment. But in order to make a false document, the date put on the document must differ from the date on which the document was prepared. It is not the case of the prosecution that the date of the counterfoil is different from the date on which the counterfoil was prepared. It cannot, therefore, amount to making a false document, even if the date does not correspond with the date given in some other document. In such a case, the proper section under which the charge should be framed would be Section 477A, or some other section of the Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are, therefore, set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //