CameraIcon
CameraIcon
SearchIcon
MyQuestionIcon


Question

This question consists of legal proposition(s)/principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
PRINCIPLE : When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
FACTS : David made a living travelling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed were done by great artists. Since the artists' signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?


A
David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artist.
loader
B
David is not guilty of any offence as he was selling the art pieces for his living.
loader
C
There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the art work.
loader
D
Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it.
loader

Solution

The correct option is B David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artist.
David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artiste. 
Section 465 of IPC deals with frogery . Frogery is a type of criminal offence in which signature or seal is used for own beneficial purpose . In this case David is guilty it's a crime to use copying the signature and making profit by selling those paintings . It's a serious offence and David can be punished with fine or some imprisonment or maybe both . 

Legal Studies

Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
 
0


similar_icon
Similar questions
View More


similar_icon
People also searched for
View More



footer-image