Holding

The appellant’s delivery of forged letters, lacking dishonest or fraudulent intent and causing no wrongful gain or loss, does not satisfy the elements of offences under Sections 471, 465, or 417 IPC, and his conviction is set aside.

Summary

The case involved a cultural show organized by a minister where invitation letters on the minister's letterhead were forged. The appellant delivered the forged letters to the invitees but did not forge them himself. He was convicted by the High Court under IPC sections 417 (cheating), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using a forged document) on the basis that his conduct was dishonest and fraudulent. The Supreme Court examined the definitions of "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" under Sections 24 and 25 of the IPC and held that the appellant’s act did not involve any intention of wrongful gain or loss, nor did it cause any disadvantage to any person. Consequently, the Court found that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 471, 465 and 417 were missing and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant of all charges.

Issues considered

What is the meaning of 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' under Sections 24 and 25 of the IPC in the context of delivering forged documents?
Does delivery of forged letters without intent to cause wrongful gain or loss constitute an offence under Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC?
Can the appellant be convicted under Section 417 IPC for cheating when no valuable property or disadvantage is caused?
Whether the High Court erred in interpreting the elements of cheating and forgery in convicting the appellant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 24, s. 25, s. 415, s. 417, s. 465, s. 471

Subjects

forgerycheatingdishonestyfraudintent to defraudIPC sections 417, 465, 471criminal lawconviction reversal

Judgment

JIBRIAL DIWAN A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JULY 24, 1997

[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
B

Indian Penal Code, 1860 :

-> Sections 417, 465 and 471-0ffences undeT'-Essential ingredients
of-Cultural show organised by a MinisteT'-lnvitations to Artists-Invitation c
letters prepared on the letter head of the MinisteT'-Letters were alleged to be
forged-Two accused-Appellant and other co-accused-Allegation against
co-accused that he had forged these letters-Co-accused acquitted by Trial
Court-Allegation against the appellant was that he had delivered the forged
letters to the receipients-Conviction of appellant under sections 417, 465 read
with section 471 by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held by the
D
delivery offorged letters, there was neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor
any wrongful loss to anothe1'-1he act of the appellant could not thus be
termed to have been done dishonestly-Likewise the appellant cannot be said
to have any intention to defraud because his action resulted in no disad-
vantage to any one which but for the deception the person defrauded would E
have acted otherwise-The basic ingredients of the act done 'dishonestly' or
'fraudulently' being missing, the charges under section 47J read with 465 /PC
was totally misplaced-The act or omission of the appellant caused no harm
nor was it likely to cause harm to any person in body mind or repeti-
• tion-1hus his conviction under section 417 was also totally out of place.
F
Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P., AIR (1966) SC 523, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
545 of 1993.
G
From the Judgment apd Order dated 31.7.92 of the Bombay High
.,..1- Court in Cr!. A. No. 302 of 1988.

V.A. Mehta and A.K. Singh for the Appellant.

D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent. H
49
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we called upon Mr.
D.M. Nargolkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra· requiring ...
him make submission to support the judgment under appeal. He candidly
admitted that he was unable to do so. We appreciate the fair stance he
B has adopted. In support of the same, we record our reasons.

Shri Azhar Hussain, PW 2 was a Minister at the relevant time. in the
State of Maharashtra. He had planned a cultural show whereat some artists
were invited. The case of the prosecution is that two letters Exh. 28 and
..
Exh. 29 were. prepared on the letter head of the Minister, whereupon
c invitations were written to invite Raja Murad, and Javed Khan, PWs. These
letters were allegedly forged for these did not bear the signature of the
Minister. The show was held on the day scheduled. The invitees came on
the basis of those forged letters. Later, a controversy was raised. The
matter was investigated by the CBI. Charges were laid against the appellant
D as also one Patel, accused No. 2. The second accused stands acquitted by
the trial Court. His acquittal has been maintained by the High Court. The
allegation against the acquitted accused was that he had forged those
letters. That part of the prosecution case on account of the acquittal of the
second accused has become sealed. The role of the appellant was that he
had delivered those two forged letters to the recipients. For that act, even
E though he was acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court has convicted
him for offence under Section 417, Section 471 read with Section 465 IPC
and awarded him sentences as disclosed in the judgment under appeal.

It bears repetition that the appellant was not the forgerer of those
documents. Section 471 enjoins that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly
F uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to
be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such document. Section 465 provides that whoever commits forgery,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Now the words
'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' have been defined respectively in Sections
G
24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code. 'Dishonestly' has been defined to mean ......
that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to
one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing
'dishonestly'. The word 'fraudulently' has been defined to mean that a
person is said to do a thing fraudulent if he does that thing with intent to
H defraud but not otherwise. This Court in Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P., AIR
J. DIWAN v. STATE 51

(1966) SC 523 has explained the Word 'intent to defraud' as being not A
synonymous with the words 'intent to deceive'. It requires some action
resulting .in a disadvantage which but for the deception the person
defrauded would have avoided. Here by the delivery of forged letters, there
is neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another.
The act of the appellant could not thus be termed to have been done
dishonestly. Likewise the appellant cannot be said to have any intention to B
defraud because his action resulted in no disadvantage to any one which
but for the deception
I
the person defrauded would have acted otherwise.
The basic ingredients of the act done 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' being
missing, the charge under Section 471 read with 465 IPC was totally
misplaced and the High Court fell into an error in convicting the appellant C
on those charges.

So far as the conviction under Section 417 is concerned, the High
Court has ignored the definition of 'cheating' provided in Section 415 IPC.
The High Court has gone to hold that the accused cannot be held guilty
for offence under Section 420 IPC because there was no cheating of any D
valuable or property involved in the act or omission of the appellant. It has
just been concluded therefrom that the appellant would, therefore, be
guilty for offence under Section 417 IPC. What is deducible is that the High
Court perhaps thought that the act or ommission of the appellant was not
covered in the first part of offence of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 E
IPC. If so, the act or omission of the accused could not in any event fall in
the later part because we fail to see how the act or omission of the
appellant caused or was likely to cause harm to any person in body mind
..... or repetition. Thus the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 417 was also totally out of place and the verdict on that score F
deserves reversal.

For the foregoing reasons, we unhesitatingly allow this appeal, set
aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquit the appellant of
all charges. Before concluding the matter, we compliment Mr. Nargolkar G
for being candid in conceding the acquittal of the appellant at the outset
for which we have added the above justification.

Appeal allowed. ·