send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
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 traveling 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?
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 artists.
There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the art work.
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.
David is not guilty of any offence as he was selling the art pieces for his living.
The correct option is self explanatory, since David affixed forged signatures of the artist in order to make the potential buyers believe, that the paintings were original. The principle makes it clear that when a person falsified something with the intent to deceive another person or entity; it is forgery-which includes changing or adding the signature on a document. 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 artists.
By: SANAT DATT BHARDWAJ ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses