Sir John Edge, C.J, and Aikman, J.:— Soshi Bhushan Singh, who is described as a son of Gopi Nath Singh, was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Benares of an offence, under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, of fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine a document which he knew to be a forged document, and was for that offence sentenced to a term of six months' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction Soshi Bushan Singh has appealed. After bearing Mr. Dwarka Nath Banerji for the appellant, and Mr. Arthur Strachey for the Crown, we took time to consider the wording of our judgment, as the questions of law involved in the case seemed to us to be important, but we had no doubt as to what our conclusions must be. We may say at once that we entirely agree with the findings of fact set out in the very careful and able judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
On the third of November 1891 the prisoner presented to the Principal of Queen's College, Benares, the following application:— “To the Principal, Queen's College, Benares. Sir,—I should feel much obliged if you would kindly allow me to get admission into the second year law class of your College. As for my qualifications, I beg leave to state that I passed the F.A Examination in 1886 from the Canning College, Luck-now, and studied in the law class there for a considerable portion of the session, during which between 60 and 70 lectures were delivered; and I am almost sure that 1 was present in not less than 55 of them. So under the present rules of your College, I attended a full course of lectures to [212] be delivered in your College, and was present in more than 75 per cent, of then. My transfer certificate is not with me for the present. It is in the office of the Metropolitan Institution, which is yet closed for the Dusserah vacation. I shall be able to produce it in a very short time. Should I be found behind the percentage required for the completion of the first year lectures, or I fail to produce the certificate in a reasonable time, two months at the most, I should raise no objection to my name being transferred to the roll of the first year class.—I have, &c., Soshi Bhushan Singh, Benares, the 3rd November 1891.”
No student is permitted to attend the second year law class at Queen's College unless he has attended the first year law class at the College, or produces a “transfer certificate” granted by the Principal of one of the other recognized Colleges or educational institutions, showing that at such other College or institution he had attended a first year law class. Upon that application the Principal of Queen's College, on the 4th of November 1891, passed the following order:—
“May join the second year class on condition that if his certificate is in complete the will be transferred to the first year.”
The Professor of Law at Queen's College is paid by the fees received from students admitted to the law classes. Those fees are as follows:— A student admitted to a first year law class pays Rs. 5 as an admission fee and Rs. 45 as the tuition fee for that year. A student admitted to a second year law class pays Rs. 54 as the tuition fee for that year. A student admitted to the second year law class in Queen's College on a “transfer certificate” pays the latter fee of Rs. 54 only to the College. In November or December 1891, and after the Principal of Queen's College had passed the order which we have set out, the prisoner presented to the Law Professor of Queen's College the document which has been found to be a forged document, and in respect of the using of which the prisoner has been convicted. That document is as follows:—
“Certified that Soshi Bhushau Singh attended the law class attached to this College from June 1886 to February 1887. The [213] roll was called 72 times during this period and Soshi Bhushan was present in 63 of them. Fees paid up.—M.J White, M.A, Principal, Canning College. The 17th March 1887.”
After perusing that document the Professor of Law returned it to the prisoner. The prisoner was permitted, on the faith of that document being a genuine “transfer certificate,” to attend, and he did attend, the second year law class at Queen's College. After the completion of the attendance of the second year law class, the prisoner, on the 21st or 22nd of November 1892, presented to the Professor of Law the following application:—
“To the Law Professor, Queen's College, Benares.—Sir,—As I have completed the course of lectures in the law class, I most respectfully beg to request the favour of your granting me a certificate to that effect.—I have, &c., Soshi Bhushan Singh, Benares, the 22nd of November 1892.”
Although the application bears date the 22nd November, 1892, it apparently must have been presented on the 21st of November, 1892, as on the 21st of November, the Principal of Queen's College passed on that application the following order:—
“Give him a certificate stating the period he has attended here.”
On the 23rd of November 1892, the prisoner presented to the Professor of Law the following application:—
“To the Law Professor, Queen's College, Benares.—Sir, I most respectfully beg to state that I am going to appear in the Calcutta Judge's Court pleadership examination. But the authorities there do not recognise two separate certificates from two separate institutions. I therefore request the favour of your granting me” a fresh certificate consolidating these two into one.—I have, &c., soshi bhushan Singh, Benares, 23rd of November 1892.”
Upon that application the Principal of Queen's College, on the 24th of November 1892, passed the following order:— Former application must be produced.”
[214] The head clerk of Benares College asked the prisoner for his “transfer certificate,” and the prisoner gave to the head clerk the document, bearing date the 17th of March 1887, which we have already set out. A draft certificate stating that: the prisoner had attended thirty-nine out of sixty-eight lectures in the law department of Queen's College from the 3rd of November, 1891 to the 23rd of November 1892 had been prepared in the office of the College.
The papers were submitted to the Principal of Queen's College, and the prisoner attended before him. The Principal's suspicions as to the genuineness of the document which bears date the 17th of March 1887 were aroused, and he suspended the issuing of the consolidated certificate pending inquiries. In the result the prisoner was prosecuted and was convicted of the offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The signature of the document which bears date the 17th of March 1887 was not the signature of Mr. M.J White, the Principal of Canning College, Lucknow; that document was not issued by his authority. Between June 1886 and February 1887 inclusive, only forty-eight lectures, and not seventy-two, were delivered in the law class of Canning College; the prisoner had not paid any fee for attendance at the law class of Canning College; his name was not on the register of Canning College as that of a student attending the law class, and in fact he had not attended any of the lectures of the law class of Canning College, Lucknow. It is obvious, on the above facts, that the prisoner must have known that the document bearing date the 17th of March 1887 was not, what it purported to be a genuine transfer certificate. It is also obvious that when the prisoner in November or December 1891 presented to the Professor of Law of Queen's College the document which bears date the 17th of March 1887, he did so with the twofold object of avoiding the necessity of attending the first year law class and of paying the fees of Rs. 5 and Rs. 45, which, as a student attending the first year law class, he would otherwise be obliged to pay, and of obtaining admission to the second year law class.
[215] It is also obvious that when the prisoner in November 1892 gave to the head clerk of Queen's College the document which bears date the 17th of March 1837, he did so in order to induce the Principal of Queen's College to believe that he had attended a first year law class at Canning College, Lucknow, and thereby to obtain a consolidated certificate, which according to his application, dated the 23rd of November 1892, would he required for the purpose of his being admitted to the pleadership examination in Calcutta.
On the above facts the question of law is, had the prisoner committed the offence of which lie has been convicted? In support of the appeal Mr. Banerji relied upon the decisions in Queen-Empress v. Haradhan, Jan Mahomed and Jabar Mahomed v. Queen-Empress. Empress v. Dwarka Prasad and Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal(4).
For the Crown Mr. Strachey relied upon the decisions in Queen Empress v. Appasami(5), Queen Empress v. Ganesh Khanderao and Ganesh Daulat(6) and an unreported decision of this Court in the Queen-Empress v. Bhushan Chandra, decided on the 29th of July 1890.
In order to ascertain whether the necessary ingredients of an offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code existed in this case on the facts found by us, and also by the Court below, we must read ss. 470, 464, 463, 29, 25, 24, and 23 of that Code. The document in question, namely that bearing date the 17th of March 1887, could only have been made with the object of being used. It would be useless, except as a certificate that the prisoner had from June 1886 to February 1887 attended the law class of Canning College, and had been present at sixty-three out of seventy two lectures in that law class; and the only object for which it could have been made was that, purporting to lie a genuine certificate under the hand of the Principal of Canning College, it would enable the prisoner to avoid the necessity of attending a first year law class and of paying the fees payable for an attendance [216] at a first year law class. It was made with the obvious intention of being presented to the Principal of some College or educational institution in which students are not allowed, to attend a second year law class unless they have previously attended a first year law class. In our opinion it was not only “dishonestly” made, as that word is defined in s. 24, but it was also “fraudulently” made, as that word is defined in s. 25 of the Indian Penal Code. It was made with the intention of causing wrongful gain to the prisoner and wrongful Joss to the Professor of Law, or to the College authority where it was to has used, by enabling the prisoner to keep in his own pocket fees which otherwise he would have had to pay. Such fees would, in our opinion, be “property” within the meaning of s. 23. That document was further fraudulently made as having been made with the intention that the prisoner should by the use of it deceive a College authority, and obtain admission to a second year law-class. Illustration (k) to s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code shows that if A without B's authority writes a letter and signs it in B's name, certifying to A's character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z, A commits forgery, inasmuch as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate and thereby to induce Z to enter into an implied or express contract of service. We can see no difference in principle between the case of a man making a false certificate in order to obtain employment and the case of a man making a false certificate in order to obtain admission to a law class. In each case the intention is to deceive another person, and thereby to obtain an advantage, or a privilege, which without such deception could not have been obtained. We are consequently of opinion that the document in question was a false document within the meaning of s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
The next question is, did the person who made that false document commit forgery within the meaning of s. 463 of the Indian Penal Code? That section is as follows:— “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 [217] 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.
We cannot agree with Norris, J., in Queen-Empress v. Haradhan that the claim in that section is limited to a claim to property. There does not appear to us to be anything in the section to so limit the application of that word. If the Legislature had intended to limit that word to a claim to property, we should have expected that the section would have run thus:— “Or to support any claim or title to, or to cause any person to part with, property.”
In our opinion the claim may be a claim to anything, as, for instance, a claim to a woman as the claimant's wife, a claim to the custody of a child as being the claimant's child, or a claim to be admitted to attendance at a law class in a college, or to be admitted to a university or other examination, or a claim to the possession of immoveable or any other kind of property. Why should the making of a false document to support a claim to an old coat, not worth Rs. 5, be a forgery, and the making of a false document to support a claim to the custody of a child not be a forgery? The document dated the 7th of March 1887 was made with some object. The person who made it must have intended that it should be used for some purpose which could not have been honest. He must have made it with the intention that it should be used to deceive some one into the belief that the prisoner had attended a year's course of law lectures at Canning College. It is only reasonable to believe that the document was made with the intention of supporting a claim by the prisoner to be admitted as a student to a second year law class.
It is possible that it was made with the intention of being used to obtain ultimately for the prisoner a consolidated certificate. In any case it must have been made with the intention that by using it the prisoner might obtain admission to a second year law class. That document was in our opinion made with the intent to [218] support a claim within the meaning of s. 463 of the Indian Penal Code.
There cannot in our opinion be any doubt that a written certificate is “property” within the meaning of s. 463. If the prisoner had obtained the certificate which he tried to obtain, and some one had stolen it from him, no one, we imagine, would suggest that the thief could not legally be convicted, under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code, of the theft of the certificate, but if the certificate was not moveable “property,” the person who dishonestly took the certificate out of the possession of the prisoner, without the prisoner's consent, could not be convicted of a theft, in respect of it. It is not in our opinion necessary to constitute a forgery under s. 463 that the “property” with which it is intended that the false document shall cause a person to part, should be in existence at the time when the false document was made. For example, if A gave an order to 13 to buy the material for making and to make a silver tea service for him, and C, before the tea service was made or the materials for making it had been bought, were to make a false letter purporting, but falsely, to be signed by A, authorizing 13 to deliver to D the tea service when made, C would have committed forgery within the meaning of s. 463 by making that false document with intent to cause 13 to part with property, namely, the tea service, when made. We are further of opinion that the document in question was made with intent that fraud might be committed.
We entirely agree with the view of the law expressed by Sir Arthur Collins, C.J, and Parker, J., in Queen-Empress v. Appasami. We also entirely agree with the view of the law expressed by Jardine and Candy, JJ., in Queen-Empress v. Ganesh Khanderao and Ganesh Daulat, at pp. 512, 513 and 514 of the report.
Finally we are satisfied that the prisoner committed an offence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code, when in November or December 1891 he used the document which bears date the 17th [219] of March 1887, by handing that document to the Professor of Law of Queen's College, as a genuine certificate signed by the Principal of Canning College, and that he again committed an offence under s. 471 of the Code when, in November 1892, he handed that document to the head clerk of Queen's College for the purpose of obtaining the grant to him of a consolidated certificate. We dismiss this appeal.