LexDR. VIMLA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPRE!vIE COURT REPORTS 5135 DR. VIMLA. ·v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (S.J. IMAM, K. SuRBA RAo, N. RAJAUol'ALA AYYANGAJi and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Meaning of 'cli.-;hone.<:fl,y' and 'fraudn· ltntly'-Meanin!/ of 'fal-'le rlocunu:ut' anrl 'forycry'-lndian Penal U<xle, !SulJ (Act 15 of 18Ull), ""· ·!J, :!J, liiJ, Jl;.J, 4ui', 4(jlJ. Dr. Vimla purchased a car in the name of her minor daughter Nalini aged about 6 months. The price of the car was paid by her. The transfer of the car was notified in the name of Nalini to the Motor Registration Authority. The insurance policy already issued was transfe1Ted in the name of Nalini after the proposal form wa• signed by Dr. Vim la. Subsequently, Dr. Vimla filed two claims on the ground that the car met with accidents. She signed the claim forms as Nalini. She also signctl the receipts ackno,vlcdging tJ1e pay- ment of cornpensatiun 1noucy as Nalini. l)r. \7in1la and her husband were prosecuted under sections 120 ll, 41V, 467 an<l 468 of the Indian Penal Cude. Hoth the accused were acquitt- ed by the Sessions Judge. Tl1c State went in appeal and the High Court convicted Dr. Virula under s. -167 a11d ·Hill of the Indian J>cual C11dc. Ur. \.'hnla ..:arnc Lu this C.!vurl by special leave. Held, that appellaut was nut guilty of the offence under s. 467 and 468 of tbe Indian Penal Code. She was cerlaiuly guilty of deceit because though her uatne was \~in1la, she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini and made the Insurance Company believe that her name was Nalini, bnt the said deceit did not either -.;ecurc to her advanlag"e or cause any non.economic loss or injury to the Insurance Company. The charge did not disclose any such advantage or injury nor was there any evidence tv prove the sa1nc. 'fhc entire transac .. tion was that of Dr. Vhnla aud it was only put through iu the name of her n1inur daughtr-r. Nalini was in fat;t either a Benamidar for Dr. Vitula or lv~r 11arnc was u~erl for luck or other' sentimental considerations. 'l'he Insurance c:ompany WOltkl not have acted differently even if the car stood in the uame of Dr. Vimla. 1962 ~Vquember, 29. 1962 Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Admir1Ulrolio11 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19631 SUPP. The definition of •false document' is a part of the defini· tion of •forgery' and both must be read together. If so read, the ingredients of the offence of forg·ry relevant to the present case are as follows : ( 1) fradulently signing a document or a part of a document with an intention of causing it to be believ- ed that such document or part of a document was signed by another under his authority ; and (2) making of such a document with an intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The expression •fraud' involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of propei:ty, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will in- clude and any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non...econo. mic 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. Haycraft v. Cre°''Y• (1801) 2 East 92, in re. Londim and Globe Finance Corporotion Ltd., (1903) I Ch. 732, R. v. JVelham, (1960) 1 All. E R. 260, Kotamrajit Venkatrayad1t v. Emperor (1905) I. L. R. 28 Mad. 90, -Sarendra Nath Gha&e v. Emperor, (1910) I. L. R. 38 Cal. 75, Sanjiv llatnappa v. Emperor, A. I. R. 1932 Born. 545 and Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, A. I. R. 1944 Lah. 380, referred to. CRIMINAJ, APPELLATEjUltJSJ..W,,'TION: Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 24, 1960, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in Criminal Appeal Case No. 41-D of 1958. 11. L. A·nand, an<l K. Bulde·v Mehl!,, for the appellant. V. D. MahaJan and P. D. Me1Wn, for the respondent. 1962. November 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 687 SUBBA RAo, ].-This appeal by Special leave raises the question as' to the true meaning of the ex- pression 'fraudulently' ins. 46! of the Indian Penal Code. The facts either admitted or found by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.