FALSE DOCUMENT

Anil g all is a matter of evidence.

464. Making a false document.--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 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.-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to

sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

If ur Mr. X has made, signed, sealed & executed a document on somebody else's behalf ... to make others believe that - that somebody has made, signed, sealed & executed the said document then he would come under the purview of this section.

Dear Darmesh ji,

While posting the query on the forum,  I also held the same view as your view.  However after reading Kiranji's reply, I made some research and I found that there is judgement of Bombay high court which says that even if Mr. X had made, signed or executed a document on his own behalf and does not make others believe it was made, signed or executed by somebody else, yet it would come within the meaning of "false document" & FORGERY in view of illustration "e" & "h" read with Explanation 1 to s.464 of IPC.

I personally have strong reservation on the said judgement as it seeks to interpret the section on the basis of illustration.

 dear friend,

when the section denotes either ,or as an act or circumstances punishable under the law,in the form it is  narrated in the act ,it means the either of the circemstances or act or ommission is punishable under the law. and the prosecution will prove either of this three circumstances not all.

law is presumed not to say or repeat, one and the same thisng again and again, so it is not necessary in each case that all the three part in these section will be  followed in every case,

the one of this three is sufficient to create criminal liability. therefore there will be unfrutile to discuss the case which covers all three circumstances.

kindly consider section 105,106 of evidence act if you signed or prepare a documents with any motive ,the personal knowledge of intention lies with you.

For the intention. it is your defence that you have prepared it with out ill will or malafide intention. it is therefore upto u to prove the defence of your personal knowledge that you have though signed it but not with an ithention to creat fraud or any other illwill.  and it was created as just for fun.therefore the mattare of defence under section 76 to 105 under ipc.is a part of procedure of trial.