Marksheet Not "Valuable Security" For Forgery Prosecution U/S 467 IPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Placing reliance on the jurisprudence laid down in the subject matter concerned, Justice Sujoy Paul observed-

The Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Kumar Shukla (supra) has followed the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 551 and came to hold that mark-sheet is not a 'valuable security' within the meaning of Section 467 of the IPC. I am bound by the aforesaid judgment and in view of said judgment constraint to hold that the charge against the applicant under Section 467 of the IPC is not sustainable.

Facts of the case were that the brother/co-accused of the Petitioner allegedly used Petitioner's marksheet as his own to secure a Government Job. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against the Petitioner and his brother, and the trial court framed charged against him under Sections 467, 468, 471 and120-B IPC. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the revision petition against the order of framing of charges.

The Petitioner argued that a marksheet cannot be considered to be a valuable security to attract the offence under Section 467 IPC. It was further submitted that since the Petitioner had not tampered with or forged the marksheet, there was no substance in the charge under Section 468 IPC framed against him. With regard to charge under Section 471 IPC, it was submitted that the Prosecution story did not reflect anywhere that the Petitioner had indulged in the alleged act to secure his own gains.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the arguments put forth by the Petitioner. The Court noted that a marksheet cannot be considered to be a valuable security for the purpose of Section 467 IPC.

The Court also observed that the charges under Sections 467 and 471 IPC against the Petitioner could not stand ground since it was not the case of the Prosecution that he had either forged/tampered with the document or fraudulently used it to further his own gains-

Sections 468 and 471 begins with the expression 'whoever commits or whoever uses'. The intention of law makers is clear that these provisions are aimed against the person who has used the forged document as a genuine document. If the story of prosecution is accepted on its face value, it will be clear that there is no allegation against the present applicant that he has either tampered the document or fraudulently used this document for obtaining the employment or for any other purpose. The allegation is made against the co- accused Raghunath Patel that he has impostered himself as applicant and used educational qualification documents of present applicant.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that no case was made out against the Petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC and therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the order of framing of charges against the Petitioner was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the trial court to reconsider as to whether any other charges could be framed against the Petitioner for his role in the alleged act.

Also Read: Person Accused Of Tampering With OMR Sheet Can Be Prosecuted U/S 467 IPC For Forgery Of Valuable Security: MP High Court