P.V.Khullar Vs Cbi

these review applications are filed against the order of this court dated 3.4.2009 passed in c.r.p.(npd) nos.783 and 784 of 2009 and m.p.nos.1 to 3 of 2009.1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes.2. to be referred to the reporter or not? yes.3. whether judgment should be reported in digest? yes. 1. while arguing this petition, the petitioner did not press the petition so far as charges under section 420 ipc was concerned, but, submitted that no charge under section 468 & 471 ipc could have been framed against the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere false statements made in a document does not amount to forgery of the document, therefore, charges of forgery under section 468 & 471 ipc could not have been levied against the petitioner. he submitted that sections 468 &471 ipc can be levied only where the petitioner had indulged into creating false documents or had forged some signatures. he submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had not forged any signatures and no document was sent to cfsl.2. a bare perusal of definition of forgery, as contained in sections 463 & 464 of ipc, would show that forgery does not essentially mean forgery of signatures or creation of forged documents or making changes in a document only. forgery includes and means making false documents or false record or creating a part of the document as false document with intention to cause damage.3. in the present case, the petitioner was involved in creation of falsified accounts of the company, in order to cheat the bank. the false accounts of company were used for cheating. in view of this i consider that trial court rightly framed charges under sections 468 & 471 of ipc as well.4. i find no force in this petition. the petition is dismissed.