JUDGMENT : 1. The facts of this case are clear. The sole question is what offence has the appellant committed, if any, at all. The appellant owned certain property. With a view apparently to cheating one Fakir Chand he executed a sale deed of the whole of his property in favour of his wife. He then executed a mortgage of his property in favour of Fakir Chand for Rs. 10,000. At that time the sale deed in favour of his wife had not been registered. Before the mortgage transaction was completed Fakir Chand made all necessary inquiry in the Registration Department as to prior incumbrance. The appellant then put in the sale deed in favour of his wife for registration, and soon after, the mortgage deed was also registered. When the matter came to light Fakir Chand charged him in the criminal Court with cheating. While that criminal case was pending, it came to light that the mortgage deed which the complainant filed in Court bore on it an endorsement of the return of the consideration purporting to have been signed by Fakir Chand. It was amply proved that the document bore no such endorsement at the time it was filed in the criminal Court by the complainant. It is in respect of this endorsement, that the appellant has now been convicted under S. 467, I.P.C., and S. 193, I.P.C., I note that he has also been convicted of the offence of cheating. The plea raised on his behalf is that the intent with which the forgery was committed could only have been to save the appellant from conviction in the criminal case and that therefore the act does not amount to the offence which is defined in S. 463, I.P.C. 2. The Court below has pointed to the fact that such an endorsement, if genuine, would be a full acquittance of the debt due on the mortgage and would rid the appellant of his liability under the deed. It has been concluded that the appellant had two intentions in his mind, first, to protect himself from a conviction of the offence of cheating and secondly, to rid himself of all the liability under the bond and that the latter was at least an intent to cause damage or injury or at least to commit fraud. It has been concluded that the appellant had two intentions in his mind, first, to protect himself from a conviction of the offence of cheating and secondly, to rid himself of all the liability under the bond and that the latter was at least an intent to cause damage or injury or at least to commit fraud. It has also been equally held that the accused's act amounts to an offence under S. 193 (afbricating false evidence). It is quite clear that the appellant is guilty of one of the two offences. As regards his intent a man is presumed to know the probable result of his action and it obviously could not have been absent from the appellant's mind when he made the forged endorsement that he was thereby attempting to defraud and cheat Fakir Chand out of his money. It is impossible that he could not have had this result before his mind. I therefore think that the Court below is quite correct in holding that he acted with both intents and that his act does amount to an offence under S. 463, I.P.C. In my opinion the conviction is correct. I dismiss the appeal.