S.471 RPC | Fraudulent Use Of Forged Documents Is Punishable Even If Not Personally Forged By Accused: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar explained Section 471 RPC is intended to apply to persons other than the forger himself but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the Section.

The court added, “It is not necessary that the person held guilty under Section 471 of RPC must have forged the document himself. As long as it is shown that a forged document has been used as genuine knowing it to be forged or having reason to believe that the document is forged, its fraudulent use becomes punishable under Section 471 of the RPC”

These observations came while hearing the appeal of Abdul Rashid Bhat, who was convicted by the trial court for using a fake matriculation certificate to secure a promotion.

The case dated back to the year 2011, when the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) of Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, received a communication from the Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar.

The communication, accompanied by a letter from the State Vigilance Organization, alleged that Bhat had been promoted from the post of Mulberry Guard (Class IV) to Bush Technician using a fake matriculation certificate. An FIR (No.33/2011) was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 201 of the RPC, leading to an investigation.

During the investigation, a photocopy of the matriculation certificate was seized from the office of the Additional Director, Sericulture Department, and witness statements were recorded. The original certificate was reportedly delivered back to Bhat, who then allegedly destroyed it, leading to additional charges under Section 201 RPC.

After a trial, Bhat was found guilty by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on July 3, 2020, and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment with fines for offences under Sections 468 and 471 RPC, and one year with fines for the offence under Section 201 RPC.

Assailing his conviction Bhat argued that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offence as there was no evidence showing Bhat having used the certificate for securing a promotion or that matriculation was required for his promotion.

The conviction was based on a photocopy of the alleged fake certificate, without proving that Bhat received or destroyed the original certificate, he submitted.

The respondents countered by submitting that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence, including witness statements and expert reports, to establish that the certificate used by Bhat was fake and his actions clearly fell under the purview of Sections 468, 471, and 201 RPC.

Court Observations:

Upon meticulously reviewing the evidence and legal provisions Justice Dhar stated that the prosecution had failed to produce the original matriculation certificate, relying instead on secondary evidence, which was deemed inadmissible as the necessary conditions for admitting such evidence were not met.

Commenting on the claim of the prosecution that the original fake certificate had been destroyed by the appellant after having received it back from the department against a proper receipt and his signatures were confirmed by FSL the court rejected the same observing,

“The report of the Handwriting Expert is on record. However, the prosecution has not examined the Handwriting Expert to prove report dated 15.07.2011. Without examining the author of the report, the same cannot be taken into consideration because its contents have not been proved by the Handwriting Expert”

Citing a lack of direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime, the court said that none of the departmental witnesses confirmed that Bhat produced the fake certificate and hence the origin of the photocopy and its connection to Bhat remained unsubstantiated.

Deliberating on Section 471 RPC the Court emphasized that fraudulent use of a forged document, knowing it to be forged, is punishable under Section 471 RPC. It is not essential that the person must have forged the document themselves. it added.

Expounding on the charge of Section 468 RPC against Bhat, Justice Dhar observed that conviction under this section requires proof that the accused committed forgery.

“Since there is no evidence on record to show that it is the appellant who has committed the forgery of the photocopy of the matriculation certificate or the original of the matriculation certificate pertaining to the appellant, therefore, his conviction under Section 468 of RPC is based upon no evidence at all and, as such, the same is not sustainable”, the bench remarked.

Regarding charge for offence under Section 201 of RPC, the court stated that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant received the original certificate. Without proof of receipt, it cannot be established that the appellant destroyed it, therefore, the charge under Section 201 IPC is not substantiated, it maintained.

In light of these observations the court allowed the appeal and set aside Bhat's conviction.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Bhat Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 216

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment