http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: G.S.BANSAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1963

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: 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  dis- honest  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.

JUDGMENT: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

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  ration- ing  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 guitly 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

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  com-               mitted 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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

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 Adminiistration (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 certicates  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  certi- ficates  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

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 heirship  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

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  non-               economic 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  non- economic 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7