Order.- The two petitioners in this case, the president and the clerk of a Co-operative Stores in Vadipatti, have been convicted under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, for falsifying the accounts of the stores of Vadipatti by making two false and fraudulent entries in the account book of the stores (Exhibit P-12) regarding two false and fraudulent bills (Exhibits P-13 and P-14, dated 16th February, 1949 and 1st May, 1949) about the alleged sale of cane jaggery and ground-nut on those days, when really these things had been sold away before 27th January, 1949 and the bills (Exhibits P-13 and P-14) were bogus and false ones not relating to any genuine sales to the parties mentioned, or for the sums mentioned, or for the qualities mentioned, or on the dates mentioned. They were sentenced by the First Additional First Class Magistrate, Madura, to pay fines of Rs. 500 and Rs. 200 respectively. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of Madura reduced the fine on the first accused to Rs. 400 and on accused 2, a clerk under his control and subject to his orders, to Rs. 50. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor contra. Mr. Govind Swaminathan, for the petitioners, conceded that the two bills were not true bills, and were bogus and false ones, but stated that nobody had been defrauded of property, or caused wrongful loss eventually and that every member of the stores, and the stores itself had received all the moneys due to them. He contended that, though the bills were not true and genuine ones and were indeed false ones, there was no fraud as there was no deprivation of property, and therefore there could be no conviction for an offence under section 477-A. I cannot agreeSection 477-A only requires the falsification of accounts with intent to defraud. It does not require any deprivation of property. In fact, fraud means what it says, namely, making a person believe what is not true with intent to cause some injury of some kind in property or reputation to him or to suppress some previous fraudulent transaction and action about it. It does not require any deprivation of property. In fact, fraud means what it says, namely, making a person believe what is not true with intent to cause some injury of some kind in property or reputation to him or to suppress some previous fraudulent transaction and action about it. It has been held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Queen-Empress v. Abbas Ali1 as follows: “The word ‘fraudulently’ should not be confined to transactions of which deprivation of the property, either actual or intended, forms part.” They held finally that deprivation, actual or intended, is not a necessary ingredient to defraud. They also relied upon the decision in Reg v. Toshack2, in support of the view they took. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court has, later on, held in Emperor v. Rash Behari Das3, that the making of false entries in a book or register by any person in order to conceal a fraudulent or bogus act falls within the purview of section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the intention is undoubtedly to defraud. I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that both the petitioners in this case acted fraudulently in bringing into being these two bogus false bills, Exhibits P-13 and P-14 and entering them in the account book of the stores, Exhibit P-12, as if they represented genuine transactions. The two bills were admittedly false, and entering them in the society’s account as if they were true was undoubtedly done with intent to defraud, and for the purpose of concealing the previous fraud of the petitioners. It cannot be said that making false entries regarding bogus transactions in the accounts of a company or stores will not injure the company or stores in property, and will be only “a game in fraud”, like a school boy’s game or play. Often these accounts have to be put into Court, either for claiming something on behalf of the stores, or for defending some action against the stores, and, once it is proved or admitted that bogus and false entries are to be found in the accounts (no honest society could avoid making such admissions in cases like this), no Court will act on these accounts. These accounts containing false entries will be thrown out as unworthy of credence for any purpose whatever, and that will be doing very serious pecuniary injury indeed to shops and societies, whose usual method of proof, offensive and defensive, is in such accounts kept in the usual course of business. If the president and the clerk of the society go round making such false entries, regarding false bills and transactions in the store’s accounts, that will certainly be “fraudulent” also within the purview of section 477-A, Indian Penal Code,‘even though no one may lose one pie eventually by such false and fraudulent conduct or entry on the part of the petitioners. The law is not concerned with the “eventual result”. Thus, a pick-pocket, hoping to get a good scoop, puts his hands into the pocket of a millionaire, but, unfortunately finds it empty; still, he will commit an offence despite his eventually gaining not a pie. So, I confirm the conviction of the first petitioner, but, considering all the circumstances reduce the sentence to a fine of Rs. 100, or, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. The excess fine, if paid, will be refunded. A special argument was urged on behalf of the second petitioner, viz., that he was only a clerk under the orders of the first petitioner and so had to make those false and fraudulent entries in the account book from fear. The law allows fear as a reason for acquittal in such offences only if there is fear of instant death or instant grievous hurt apprehended to result in instant death, which is not alleged or proved in this case. So the conviction of the second petitioner also was correct. He was given sufficient indulgence, in the matter of sentence, after considering the above circumstances. Therefore his conviction and sentence are confirmed and the petition is dismissed as regards him. K.C. ----- Sentence on first petitioner alone reduced.