JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directly against the judgment, dated, September 18, 1973, passed by the Special Judge, Jaipur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:- 1. Appellant Jagdish Prasad (i) Convicted under section 409 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. (ii) Convicted under section 5 (I) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. No separate sentence was passed for this offence. (iii) Convicted under section 467 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250/- or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. (iv) Convicted under section 201 IPC. No separate sentence was passed for this offence. 2. Appellant Shambhu Dayal (i) Convicted under section 201 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/- or, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the two appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. Jagdish Prasad who is principal accused in the case, was the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Shri Madhpur, District Sikar (hereinafter called the Board) and was functioning, as such, at the material time. Tara Chand, the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate concerned, who inspected the accounts of the Board from February 18, 1963 to February 21, 1963, discovered that the Chairman and other members of the Board had committed embezzlement of municipal funds. On receipt of his report, the authorities concerned ordered immediate audit of the accounts. Giarsi Lal, Assistant Examiner, Local Funds, Audit Department, Jaipur paid a surprise visit to the office of the Board on April 22, 1963 and found that the Chairman and the Cashier were not present there. He was informed that Sualal, the Cashier at the time, was on leave and that Jagdish Prasad, the Chairman was in town and could return to the office any time that day. Giarsi-Lal sealed the cash box and the room in which cash and account books were lying, and advised the staff to call him as and when the Chairman and Cashier were available in the office. 3. Giarsi-Lal sealed the cash box and the room in which cash and account books were lying, and advised the staff to call him as and when the Chairman and Cashier were available in the office. 3. It is further alleged that accused Jagdish Prasad contacted Giarsilal on April 23, 1963, morning and requested him to open the seals and check the cash and the account books lying there. Giarsilal did the needful in the presence of the staff of the Board and accused Jagdish Prasad. He discovered that the cash book had been written upto April 20 only and that even then no balance had been struck for that day. He arrived at the book balance on the basis of entires already made and concluded therefrom that the book balance should have been Rs. 766.12 as per details below:- (i) Closing Balance on 17.4.63 and opening balance on 20.4.63 Rs. 505-69 (ii) Credit by Challan No. 19 dated 17.4.63 Rs. 63-04 (iii) Credit by Challan No. 20 Rs. 5-71 (iv) Credit by Challan No. 21 Rs. 78-99 (v) Credit by Challan No. 22 Rs. 112-63 Total Rs. 766-12 As against the book balance of Rs. 766.12, the actual cash balance found in the chest was Rs. 566.11 leaving a shortage of Rs. 200.01. The Chairman was unable to explain the shortage. It transpired during the investigation that with a view to concealing the embezzlement of Rs, 200 01 by him, appellant Jagdish Prasad prepared in his own hand and under his signatures a receipt purporting to show that he had received payment from the Cashier of Rs. 200/- on April 21, 1963. He caused an endorsement to be made on the back of that document by appellant Shambhu Dayal, one of his relations and an employee of the Board, to the effect that the said document had been with the Cashier at the time of inspection and that after obtaining the same from him on April 23, 1963, necessary entry was made in the cash book. Shambhu Dayal actually made the entry in the cash book on April 23, 1973, after Giarsilal had already examined it and left Shri Madhopur. Shambhu Dayal actually made the entry in the cash book on April 23, 1973, after Giarsilal had already examined it and left Shri Madhopur. Sualal, the Cashier, told the police during investigation that he had not paid any amount to accused Jagdish Prasad on April 21, 1963, and that there was in fact no question of any such transaction taking place on the even date, for the same was Sunday and Sualal had formally obtained leave from that date to April 24, 1963. It is on the basis of these facts and circumstances that the investigation officer made the allegation that the receipt in question had been fabricated by appellant Jagdish Prasad with the help of appellant Shambhu Dayal. 4. Another allegation made in the police charge-sheet against accused Jagdish Prasad is that he committed embezzlement of two different amounts of Rs 600/- and Rs. 200/- by report to a novel subterfuge. It is alleged that accused Jagdish Prasad was owing a sum of Rs. 1135/- to Prahlad Jadia, a goldsmith, on account of the price of ornaments made by Jadia, for the accused. He paid a portion of that debt by causing a payment of Rs. 600/- to be made to Jadia from the municipal funds on May 11,1962. This payment was made under the garb of amanat (trust-deposit) or surplus municipal funds. Another sum of Rs 200/- was paid by Girdharilal Jamadar to Jadia for and on behalf of accused Jagdish Prasad. The accused had earlier got a sum of Rs. 200/- paid to Girdharilal Jamadar out of the municipal funds for the purchase of certain stores which were never purchased That is how, according to the prosecution the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these two amounts of Rs. 600/- and Rs. 200/- over which he had dominion in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board. 5. Yet another allegation made against the accused Jagdish Prasad is that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the municipal funds on December 8, 1962, ostensibly for the purpose of buying uniforms for the Harijan employees of the Board. He committed criminal breach of trust in respect of this amount. Examination of the accounts of the Board revealed that the bills for the purchase of cloth and stitching charges were paid subsequently by cheques from out of the municipal funds. He committed criminal breach of trust in respect of this amount. Examination of the accounts of the Board revealed that the bills for the purchase of cloth and stitching charges were paid subsequently by cheques from out of the municipal funds. Three of these bills were got paid from the municipal funds by the accused himself. One of the bills for Rs. 324.38 which had been received by the accused was not paid by him until be was removed from the office of Chairman. His successor, namely, Guru Dutt, got that bill paid from the municipal funds on September 25, 1953. 6. Appellant Jagdish Prasad was tried by the learned Special Judge on the charge punishable under sections 201, 409 and 467 IPC and section 5 (1) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Appellant Shambhu Dayal was tried only on the charge punishable under section 201 IPC. Both of them have been found guilty of these charges. They have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset of this judgment. They have appealed. 7. In this appeal, Dr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants raised the first argument that the sanction obtained by the prosecution for the prosecution of appellant Jagdish Prasad is not valid and that therefore, the trial court was not competent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 409 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1 )(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. This argument which was raised somewhat half heatedly, is wholly devoid of force. The prosecution has placed on the record documents, Ex. P. 35 and proved them by calling P. N. Seth (PW. 17) as a witness. Seth who signed these documents "by order 'of the appropriate authority testified that he had issued the requisite orders of sanction as Deputy Secretary in the Local Self Government Department of Rajasthan and that before he did so he had submitted the entire file to the higher authorities. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason I why the sworn testimony of a responsible office like the Deputy Secretary to the Government be not believed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason I why the sworn testimony of a responsible office like the Deputy Secretary to the Government be not believed. I would, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned trial Judge that the Government of Rajasthan had accorded previous sanction for the prosecution, of Jagdish Prasad for offences mentioned above and that the orders Ex. P. 35 and Ex. P. 36 issued in that behalf were issued and signed by P. N. Seth, the Deputy Secretary concerned, in accordance with the rules of business, made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The trial court was thus competent to take cognizance of the offences ^ punishable under sections 201 and 409 I. P. C. and section 5 (1) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in the case relating to Jagdish Prasad, 8. As for appellant Shambhu Dayal, he was prosecuted under section 201 I.P.C. alone and no previous sanction of any authority was necessary for such prosecution. Section 197 Cr. P. C. and section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which deal with the question of previous sanction for prosecution of public servants do not include the offence against section 201 I. P. C. in the category of offences of which cognizance is barred without previous sanction. 9. The first argument raised by the appellants' learned counsel therefore fails. 10. Dr. Tiwari's second argument is that the evidence on record does not prove the charge under section 409 I. P. C. framed against Jagdish Prasad. The charge framed may be reproduced here for facility of reference : That you in between May 11, 1962 and April 23, 1963, being a public servant in the capacity as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Shri Madhopur and in such capacity entrusted with and having dominion on the property of the Municipal Board Shri Madhopur, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount of Rs. 2000/-and thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 4C9 I. P. C. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- said to have been embezzled by the accused consists of four items of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 600/-, Rs. 200/-. and Rs. 100/-. 2000/-and thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 4C9 I. P. C. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- said to have been embezzled by the accused consists of four items of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 600/-, Rs. 200/-. and Rs. 100/-. As already stated while narrating the facts in an earlier part of this judgment, the allegations in respect of the first amount of Rs. 200/- are that Jagdish Prasad had taken out of the Municipal funds a sum of Rs. 200/- between April 20 and 23, 1963; and that when this embezzlement was detected on April 23, he came out with the defence that he had taken the said amount as advance from the Cashier, Shri Sualal on April 21, 1963, furnishing the receipt Ex. P/4, to Sualal on the even date in token of the said advance. Sualal appeared as PW 6 and testified that he did not advance any money to Jagdish Prasad on April 21, 1963 and that the receipt Ex. P/4 had not been prepared by Jagdish Prasad in his presence, nor was it ever delivered to him by Jagdish Prasad or any one else. The receipt is admittedly in the handwriting and under the signatures of Jagdish Prasad accused. The conclusion is therefore irresistible that when the embezzlement was delected on April 23, 1963, Jagdish Prasad fabricated this document in an attempt to explain that the shortage of Rs. 200/- in the municipal chest was on account of the so-called advance of Rs. 200/- taken by him from Sualal on April 21, 1963 against the receipt Ex. P/4. His defence regarding the so-called advance stands falsified by the evidence of Sualal and the circumstances of the case. Sualal explained that he had proceeded on four days leave from April 21 to April 24, 1963, after delivering the key of the chest to Shambhu Dayal accused under orders of Jagdish Prasad accused on April 20, evening that April 21 was a Sunday and that therefore there was no , question of his making any advnace to Jagdish Prasad on April 21 or subsequently ' on April 22 and 23. Suala's evidence is trustworthy and has been rightly relied on by the court below. Jagdish Prasad accused himself stated in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. that Sualal had been on leave from April 21 to April 24. Suala's evidence is trustworthy and has been rightly relied on by the court below. Jagdish Prasad accused himself stated in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. that Sualal had been on leave from April 21 to April 24. He made this statement in the context of the receipt Ex. P/4 which he could not produce before the Audit Officer Giarsilal. P. W. 16 on April 23 at the time of the audit, because according to him the same was with Sualal who was on leave. While trying to explain the non-production of the receipt before the audit party, Jagdish Prasad made an witting admission in his statement u/s 342 Cr. P. C. to the effect that Sualal was on leave. Sualal, who was an leave and who had already delivered the key of the chest to Shambhu Dayal on April 26 evening, could not possibly make any advance of Rs. 200/- to the Chairman of the Board, i. e. Jagdish Prasad accused, out of the amount lying in the chest an April 21, Jagdish Prasad must have taken out the amount himself with the connivance of Shambhu Dayal on April 21, or 22. 11. The cash book, Ex. P/2, would also confirm the conclusion that Jagdish Prasad had taken out the amount of Rs. 200/- from the Municipal chest after Sualal had given its keys to Shambhu Dayal under orders of Jagdish Prasad on April 20 evening and proceeded on four days leave commencing from April 21 and expiring on April 24. PW Giarsilal checked the cash book on April 23, 1963 and found that entries therein were made till April 20 only without the balance for the day having been struck. Giarsilal got the balance struck for April 20, 1963. The closing book balance as on April 20, 1963 according to the entries already made, worked out to Rs. 766.12. There was no entry in the cash book for April 21, 22 and 23. The amount which was found lying in the cash chest on April 23 was Rs. 566.11. There was thus a shortage of Rs. 200.01. Jagdish Prasad who was present at the time of audit and physical verification of the amount in the chest on April 23, 1963 tried to explain the shortage on the plea that Sualal had advanced a sum of Rs. 566.11. There was thus a shortage of Rs. 200.01. Jagdish Prasad who was present at the time of audit and physical verification of the amount in the chest on April 23, 1963 tried to explain the shortage on the plea that Sualal had advanced a sum of Rs. 200/-to him on April 21, 1963 against a receipt and that the receipt was with Sualal who was away on leave. After the audit party had left on April 23, 1963, the cash-book was written by Shambhu Dayal accused for the dates April 21, 22 and 23, making an entry therein of the so called advance of Rs. 200/- by Suaal to Jagdish Prasad on April 21, 1963. Sualal categorically denied that he had anything to do with the writing of the cash book by Shambhu Dayal for the aforementioned dates. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that Shambhu Dayal wrote the cash book for the said dates at the instance of Jagdish Prasad. It is obvious that after the shortage of Rs, 200.01. from the cash chest had come to light on April 23, 1963, Jagdish Prasad began I to make frantic efforts to somehow cover up the shortage and with that object in view fabricated the receipt Ex. P/4 and caused the fabrication of the entries in the cash I book to be made for April 21, 22 and 23, 1963. 12. Dr. Tiwari then contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that on April 20, 1963, at the time when Sualal PW. 6, delivered the keys of the cash chest to Shambhu Dayal accused the chest actually contained a sum of Rs. 766.12 He argued that that in the absence of such evidence the accused would be well within his right to claim that Sualal had given charge to Shambhu Dayal on April 20 evening of a cash chest containing a sum of Rs. 566.11 only and that since on physical verification by the audit party the amount found lying in the chest was Rs. 566.11, the accused cannot be held guilty of removal of any cash from the chest after Sualal had delivered the key to Shambhu Dayal on April 20, 1963. This argument does not carry conviction, for, the cash book clearly indicates that the book balance on April 20, 1963 was Rs. 766. 566.11, the accused cannot be held guilty of removal of any cash from the chest after Sualal had delivered the key to Shambhu Dayal on April 20, 1963. This argument does not carry conviction, for, the cash book clearly indicates that the book balance on April 20, 1963 was Rs. 766. 12 and accused Shambhu Dayal had taken charge of the chest felling certain that the said amount was lying intact in it. None of the accused suggested to Sualal in cross-examination that the amount left behind by him in the chest on April 20, 1963 was less than the amount as per the book balance for the day. On the other hand, the stand taken by the accused throughout the trial was that the amount in the chest left behind by Sualal on April 20, was Rs. 766.12 and that out of it Sualal had advanced to Jagdish Prasad a sum of Rs. 200/- on April 21. The argument that the amount in the chest as on April 20, 1963 was Rs 566.11 only must therefore be rejected as invalid, 13. Turning now to the second item of Rs. 600/- which is said to be included in the total amount of Rs. 2000/- embezzled by accused Jagdish Prasad, the prosecution has produced satisfactory evidence to prove that this amount was paid to Prahlad Jadia, PW. 3, on May 11, 1962, under orders of the accused. In fact, the accused admitted in his statement that the amount in question was paid to Prahlad Jadia under his orders on May 11, 1962. The case of the Prosecution is that the accused was owing to Prahlad Jadia, a goldsmith, a sum of Rs. 1135/- as the price of some ornaments made by Jadia for the accused and that the amount of Rs. 600/- was caused by the accused to be paid to Jadia out of the municipal funds as part-payment of the debt of Rs. 1135/- under the garb of a deposit of Rs. 600/- with Jadia by way of amanat. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that the amount was paid to Jadia by way of genuine transaction of amanat. Prahlad Jadia appeared as a witness for the prosecution and testified that though he had executed the receipt Ex. 1135/- under the garb of a deposit of Rs. 600/- with Jadia by way of amanat. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that the amount was paid to Jadia by way of genuine transaction of amanat. Prahlad Jadia appeared as a witness for the prosecution and testified that though he had executed the receipt Ex. P/5, describing this payment to him as amanat, he had in fact received the payment towards the price of the ornaments made by him for the accused and supplied to him earlier. The learned trial judge has rejected the plea in defence that the amount was kept with Jadia by way of amanat. He has given good reasons for holding that the amount was got paid by the accused to Jadia on May 11, 1962 towards the part payment of the price of ornaments. The said finding stands on a sure footing and as such deserves to be affirmed. 14. The third item of Rs. 200/- which is said to have been misappropriated by accused Jagdish Prasad also consists of the payment made to Prahlad Jadia towards the price of aforementioned ornaments through Gridhari PW. 4, who was employed as a Jamadar in the Board at the relevant time. Gridhari has fully supported the prosecution case in that behalf. He testified that the accused had caused a sum of Rs. 200/- to be paid to him ostensibly for the purchase of sundry articles for the " Board and that on the direction of the accused he paid that amount to Jadia. Jadia also confirmed that he had received payment of Rs. 200/- from Gridhari on account of accused Jagdish Prasad. The learned trial judge has rightly held that the accused had in fact misappropriated this amount using Gridharilal as his instrument for the purpose. 15. The fourth and the last item of the amount said to have been embezzkd by Jagdish Prasad consists of an advance of Rs. 1000/- received by him for the purchase of liveries for the staff on December 8, 1962. 15. The fourth and the last item of the amount said to have been embezzkd by Jagdish Prasad consists of an advance of Rs. 1000/- received by him for the purchase of liveries for the staff on December 8, 1962. The prosecution has produced I evidence of an unimpeachable character to prove that the amount was received by the accused for the purchase of uniforms for the staff on December 8, 1962 that he did not pay for the uniforms at all from out of this amount and instead caused the payments of the bills to be made out of other municipal funds, and thus he committed 1 embezzlement of the said amount. The accused admitted in his statement under section 342 Cr, P. C. that he had received payment of Rs. 1000/- from the Board on December 8, 1962 for the purchase of liveries for the staff and that he did not utilise that amount for the purpose for which he had withdrawn it from the municipal fund, He also admitted that he had caused the payments of the livery bills to be made out of other municipal funds, adding in the same breath that he had to do so for he had already returned the amount of Rs. 1000/-to the Board and was thus left with no amount to pay those bills. The prosecution has produced documentary evidence to prove that some of those bills were paid in the second half of December, 1962 and January 1963 under orders of the accused. It will be seen from the evidence produced by the accused (see receipt Ex. D. 2) that the deposit on which he relies in support of his plea that he had already repaid the amount of the advance of Rs. 1000/-to the Board was made by him with the Board on March 19,1963. In other words, the amount of Rs. 1000/- which the accused had withdrawn from the municipal funds for the purchase of liveries on December 8, 1962, was still lying unexpended with him in the later-half of that month, and January 1963 when he ordered the payments of the bills relating to liveries to be made from out of other municipal funds. His explanation that he had already returned the amount to the Board is patently false. He deposited the amount of Rs. His explanation that he had already returned the amount to the Board is patently false. He deposited the amount of Rs. 1221/- with the Board on March 19, 1963, long after the embezzlements committed by him had come to light in February, 1963. I would, therefore, confirm the finding that the accused had dishonestly misappropriated this amount. 16. It cannot be seriously disputed that as Chairman of the Board, accused Jagdish Prasad had dominion over the property of the Board It was under his orders that payments were being made to different persons from the municipal funds. He passed the order Ex. P/6, directing payment of Rs. 200/- to Girdhari PW. He passed orders Ex. P/24 and Ex. P/26 directing payment of the livery bills on December 22, 1962 and December 14, 1962 respectively. He ordered vide Ex. P 24 the payment of Rs. 1000/-to himself for the purchase of liveries. It is thus clearly proved that the accused Jagdish Prasad, as Chairman of the Board had dominion over the property of the Board including its cash. 17. There is thus no doubt whatever that Jagdish Prasad had committed embezzlement of four different amounts of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 600/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 1000/-, making a total of Rs. 2000/- in 1962-63. The charge under section 409 I. P. C. stands fully established. On parity of reasoning, the charge under section 5(1) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, also stands proved. 18. This brings me to the charge of forgery framed against Jagdish Prasad. The said charge may also be reproduced here for convenience of reference : "That you while functioning as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Shri Madhopur, forged a receipt of Rs. 200/- purporting to show that the said amount of Rs. 200/-was received by you as advance on 21-4-1963 from the Cashier of the Board Shri Sualal and accordingly got forged entries made in the cash book of the said Board on 23-4-1963 and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 46 7 I. P. C." 19. It will be seen from an earlier part of this judgment that Jagdish Prasad had removed a sum of Rs. It will be seen from an earlier part of this judgment that Jagdish Prasad had removed a sum of Rs. 200/- from the municipal chest on or about April 21, 1963 and that after the contents of the chest were checked and the shortage was discovered on April 23, 1963, Jagdish Prasad prepared the receipt Ex. P/4 in his own hand and under his own signatures stating therein that he had received a sum of Rs. 200/- from cashier Sualal on April 21, 1963. He did so with a view to concealing the embezzlement of this amount by him on or about April 21, 1963. It is conclusively proved that Sualal did not advance any amount to Jagdish Prasad on or about April 211 1963. and that he had dishonestly removed Rs. 200/- from the chest under his control with the connivance of Shambhu Dayal co-accused. It is in this background that one has to find out if by preparing this false receipt, Jagdish Prasad can be said to have committed the offence of forgery punishable under section 467 I.P.C. 20. Sections 463 and 464 I. P. C. which deal with the definition of forgery so far as they are relevant for our present purpose, read as under : Forgery 463 : 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 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. Making a false document 464 : A person is said to make a false document First-who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed. The other two clauses, i.e. secondly and thirdly, of section 464 I. P. C. are not material for our present purpose and may not therefore be reproduced here. 21. The other two clauses, i.e. secondly and thirdly, of section 464 I. P. C. are not material for our present purpose and may not therefore be reproduced here. 21. Section 463 would show that the essence of the offence of forgery lies in the simple making of a false document. Section 464 explains what constitutes "making a false document". This section consists of three clauses. Clause first reproduced above is relevant for the present enquiry. In terms of this clause, a person will be said to have made a false document if he dishonestly or fraudulently made etc. a document with one of the two intentions specified therein. It must be proved that he made the document either (i) with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, etc. by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority it was not so made or, (ii) with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made etc. at a time at which he knows that it was not made. 22. Applying this analysis of section 464, clause First of the Penal Code to the Fact situation of this case, it will be seen that Jagdish Prasad accused had made the document, Ex. P/4, on or after April 23, 1963, antedating it as of April 21, 1963, thereby intending to induce the belief that it was made on April 21, 1963. One of the two intentions as specified in section 464 I. P. C (i. e. number II as per analysis above) therefore stands established against him. It has to be seen if he had ante dated this document "dishonestly or fraudulently." The expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently.4' are explained in section 24 and 25 of the Penal Code. In order to do a thing dishonestly, there must be the intention in cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. As the Supreme Court has indicated in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 S. C. 1572 , the wrongful gain or wrongful loss involved in "dishonestly" is pecuniary or economic gain or loss. By antedating this receipt Ex. P/4, the accuses obviously did not intend to derive any wrongful gain of property. This act on his part could not possibly be intended to cause wrongful loss of property to any person. By antedating this receipt Ex. P/4, the accuses obviously did not intend to derive any wrongful gain of property. This act on his part could not possibly be intended to cause wrongful loss of property to any person. He antedated this document with the mere intention of causing it to be believed that Sualal had advanced a loan of Rs. 200/- to him on April 21. 1963. The antedating of this document cannot, therefore, be said to have been done "dishonestly." 23. The question which falls for determination next is whether by antedating this document Jagdish Prasad can be said to have made it "fraudulently" section 25 of the Penal Code explains that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. In Dr. Vimla's case (Supra), the Supreme Court while explaining the "dishonesty" involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss, observed that "fraudulently" by construction excludes that element and that the expression "defraud" is made up of two ingredients, namely, deceit and injury. Injury is something other than economic or non-pecuniary loss. The Supreme Court thus held on this line of reasoning that "to defraud" is to deceive and thereby cause noneconomic or non-pecuniary loss to the person deceived and added in this context that if a benefit or advantage is derived by the person deceiving another, it would almost always cause tangible or demonstrable harm to the latter, and even if no loss was caused to the person deceizved, injury will still be presumed to have been caused and thus the second ingredient will be taken as satisfied. 24. In the instant case, the first ingredient of receipt is obviously satisfied in the very act of antedating the document, but the second ingredient of injury is missing for Jagdish Prasad accused has thereby caused no injury to Sualal, the person deceived. No harm of any kind could possibly be intended to be caused to Sualal by simply antedating the receipt. No advantage or benefit could accrue to the accused by the mere act of antedating, for the document which he was antedating was itself untrue. An untrue document does not gain in its utility or advantage to its author by being ante-dated by him. Since the author of Ex. No advantage or benefit could accrue to the accused by the mere act of antedating, for the document which he was antedating was itself untrue. An untrue document does not gain in its utility or advantage to its author by being ante-dated by him. Since the author of Ex. P.4, i. e. accused Jagdish Prasad, could not and did not drive any benefit or advantage by ante-dating this document, no injury can be presumed to have been done to Sualal. I would therefore, hold that Jagdish Prasad cannot be legitimately accused of having ante-dated the, document "dishonestly or fraudulently." The chargh of forgery must therefore, fail. 25. Before parting with discussion relating to the charge of forgery, it may also be mentioned that the charge of forgery as farmed includes the accusation against Jagdish Prasad to the effect that he was instrumental in getting false entries to be made in the cash book on April 23, 1963, on the basis of the false receipt, Ex. P/4 dated April 21, 1963. The charge in that behalf is wholly vague inasmuch as the particulars of the alleged forged entry or entries in the cash book and the precise criminal act of the accused towards the commission of the alleged forgery in the cash book are not mentioned at all in the charge sheet. Moreover, a person who is not the writer of a forged document cannot be charged with the substantive offence of forgery. If he instigated or aided the commission of such forgery, he will be guilty of abetment of forgery, but not of forgery itself. Jagdish Prasad cannot therefore be convicted of the offence of forgery on the basis of the alleged forged entries in the cash book. 26. This brings me to the charges under section 201 framed against Jagdish Prasad and Shambhu Dayal. The charge against Jagdish Prasad reads : That you on 23-4-63 at Shri Madhopur knowing that the offence of misappropriation by public servant punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (c) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed did cause the evidence of the said offence to disappear by making a forged receipt of Rs. The charge against Jagdish Prasad reads : That you on 23-4-63 at Shri Madhopur knowing that the offence of misappropriation by public servant punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (c) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed did cause the evidence of the said offence to disappear by making a forged receipt of Rs. 200/-with the intention of screening yourself from the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (c)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act committed like offence of Section 201 I.P.C. The charge against Shambhu Dayal reads:- That you on or about 23 4-63 knowing or having reason to believe that the offence of criminal misappropriation by public servant punishable under Section 409 I. P. C. & 5 (1) (c) (2), Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed by Jagdish Prasad, did cause the evidence of the said offence to disappear by making a false endorsement on the forged receipt of Rs. 200/- to the effect that the receipt of Rs. 200/- given by the Chairman of the Municipal Board was brought from Soowalal and the amount deposited with the intention of screening Shri Jagdish Prasad from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. These two charges must also fail for the simple reason that the alleged criminal acts attributed to the two accused therein do not involve the causation by them of disappearance of any evidence of the commission of any crime within the mischief of section 201 of the Penal Code. The relevant language as used in section 201 is "Causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear". The language clearly implies, in terms, the existence of evidence in physical form for some one to be able to cause its disappearance. One cannot possibly cause "any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear" unless such evidence exists as a material object capable of being destroyed or secreted. Fabrication of evidence or a document with intent to conceal the commission of an offence, as in the instant case, is not the same thing as causing the evidence of the commission of an offence to disappear. By preparing the false receipt Ex. P/4, Jagdish Prasad accused cannot therefore be said to have caused any evidence of the commission of any offence to disappear. By preparing the false receipt Ex. P/4, Jagdish Prasad accused cannot therefore be said to have caused any evidence of the commission of any offence to disappear. By the same token, Shambhu Dayal accused cannot be legally charged under section 201 I.P.C. on account of the making by him of a false endorsement on the reverse of the receipt Ex. P/4 to the effect that the said receipt had been given by Jagdish Prasad to Sualal on April 21, 1963, and that the same had been procured by him from Sualal on April 23, 1963. 28. In conclusion, therefore, the charges, under sections 201 and 467 I. P. C. framed against Jagdish Prasad, and the charge under section 201 I. P. C. framed against Shambhu Daval fail. Their appeal to that extent succeeds and their conviction and sentences under the aforementioned sections are hereby set aside. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against Jagdish Prasad under section 409 I. P. C. must however be and is hereby affirmed. His conviction under 5(1) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is also affirmed. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court under section 409 I.P.C. Appellant Shambhu Dayal is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. 29. A copy of the judgment should be sent to the trial court for the arrest and commitment of Jagdish Prasad to Jail in compliance with this order. Sd/- K.S. Sidhu, J.Appeal dismissed. *******