LOC IPC Project
LOC IPC Project
LOC IPC Project
Submitted by:
P R Harshvardhan Bhargava
PRN- 20010224247
In
March, 2022
The words fraud and dishonesty are often misplaced and confused with.
Although they are regularly used together but carry different meaning in
criminal law. The key difference between dishonestly and fraudulently is
that, dishonestly is the thing done with the intention of causing wrongful
gain to one at the cost of wrongful loss of another person, whereas in
fraudulently the person does the thing with intent to defraud and nothing
else, as seen in the case of "Queen-Empress v Abbas Ali1".
1
(1898) ILR 25 Cal 512
Issue
The issue or concern in the particular case presented before the court was
on the charge of having fraudulently or dishonestly used as an authentic,
a certain forged document.
Rule
The relevant rule used in the said case before the honorable court was
Section 25 of the Indian penal code which states that only if the thing
done with intention to defraud accounts as a thing done fraudulently by
the person.
Another relevant rule used was Section 24 of the Indian penal code which
states that a person is said to do a thing dishonestly if the does that with
the intent of casing wrongful gain or loss to another person.
Another rule used in the disposition of case was Section 465 of the Indian
Penal code which says so that commission of the crime of forgery invites
punishment of imprisonment of any term up to two years, or fine or both.
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was another rule used in the
resolution of this case which states that whosoever uses a forged be it
document or electronic record fraudulently or dishonestly, posing it as
authentic, of which he has the knowledge or has plausible concern to
believe is a forged document or electric record is punishable in the
manner same that to one that has committed forgery.
Section 463 of the India penal code says that forged documents with the
intention to cause damage to any person or public, to support a
claim/title, or to remove any person from his property or to enter into an
implied contract with the intention to commit fraud or so that commission
of fraud takes place is said to have committed forgery.
Application
Now, in accordance to the section 471 of INDIAN PENAL CODE the
essential elements to constitute it are that the document in question here
must be forged and that the accused must have the knowledge of it being
forged and have used the said forged documents as genuine documents
fraudulently or dishonestly or should have had reasons to believe that the
document in question was indeed a forged one.
According to the previously aforementioned definition of forgery it is
indeed to be made clear that the person who has committed the crime
must have acted dishonestly or fraudulently.
The section 463 talks about the two levels or types of intents, and it is
seen that it is not important that the deprivation of property of a person
may occur, and if this is taken into consideration then the said definition
of forgery cannot be the same that of a false document which requires a
criminal intent which if different form this but is in the section 463.
With this expiation and taking it into observation the court expressed that
the deprivation of actual or intended was not an important part of the
intention to defraud initially established in the section 464, which stated
the means of forgery or the specifically the methods of presenting a
forged document and with this equivalent thought of reason, the court
considered it near to the establishment of section 471 of the India penal
code.
Conclusion
The court was in no way appalled by the judgements of the English courts
but found that the intent to defraud as previously made in Reg V. Toshack
2
The court held its decision of rightfully convicting Abbas Ali in the
offence that he was charged with.
2
(1849) 4 Cox C.C. 38: 1 Den. C. C. 492