The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the words “intent to defraud”. However, the expression “intent to defraud” contains two elements viz, deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practising suggestio falsi or suppressio veri (suppression of truth is suggestion of false) or both, he intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true.

Injury has been defined in section 44 of the Code:

as denoting any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Section 477A falsification of accounts of Indian Penal Code reads thus: Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electric record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer; or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both.

Explanation.—It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed.

An analysis of this section, would show that in order to bring home an offence under this provision, the prosecution has to establish (1) that at the relevant time, the accused was a clerk, officer or servant; and (2) that acting in that capacity he destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, [electric record] writing, valuable security or account which belonged to or is in the possession of his employer or has been received by him for and on behalf of his employer etc, (3) that he did so wilfully and with intent to defraud.

The existence of the third ingredient has been the subject of serious controversy. The question is: Did the appellant make these entries “wilfully and with intent to defraud”?

Wilfully as used in section 477A means intentionally or deliberately. There can be no difficulty in holding that these entries were made by the appellant wilfully. The appellant must have been aware that the divisional superintendent had by an order prohibited the booking of this class of goods from 11 January 1967—but from the mere fact that these entries were made “wilfully”, it does not necessarily follow that he did so with intent to defraud within the meaning of section 477A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 to make him liable for the offence.

Appeal allowed.