Forgery Under Section 465 IPC Not Dependent On Financial Loss: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction For Forged University Certificates, Notes Non-Pecuniary Harm To Academic Credibility
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Balakrishnan has affirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence of forgery under Section 465 IPC, while modifying the sentence to one year’s simple imprisonment with fine, in a case involving forged university certificates and mark lists seized from his possession. The Court clarified that the offence of forgery is established even in the absence of financial loss where the false documents cause non-pecuniary harm comparable to injury to body, mind, reputation or related interests, including impairment of the credibility of academic institutions and public confidence in their processes. The petitioner was found to have fabricated certificates of Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi Universities for use by prospective beneficiaries.
The matter arises from a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused for the offence under Section 465 IPC. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 9 conspired to forge certificates and mark lists of Kerala University, Mahatma Gandhi University and the Department of Technical Education for distribution. According to the prosecution, the fourth accused prepared DTPs of the documents, which were converted into forged certificates by the third accused, who also made counterfeit seals. Accused Nos. 5 to 8 allegedly converted the DTPs into polymasters and printed fake documents, while the tenth accused provided false Embassy attestation. It was alleged that the first accused, along with others, distributed these forged materials.
On 07.08.2002, during a vehicle inspection, PW33 intercepted a car in which the first accused was travelling and seized forged certificates and mark lists from his bag. A subsequent search of his residence resulted in the recovery of further fake documents. The trial court found accused Nos. 2 to 6, 9 and 10 not guilty, closed proceedings regarding the seventh accused, and split up proceedings concerning the eighth accused. The first accused was acquitted of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but convicted under Section 465 IPC.
The first accused challenged the conviction before the appellate court, which dismissed the appeal. In the present revision, the accused argued that specimen handwriting collected during investigation could not be relied upon and that no wrongful gain or loss was proved. The State contended that the handwriting comparison was admissible and that the act of forgery caused non-economic injury to institutions and students. The court examined the evidence of seizure, expert opinion and statutory provisions before deciding upon the conviction and sentence.
The Court recorded that “on 07.08.2002 at about 6.30 pm, the 1st accused was caught red-handed with forged certificates and mark lists and was arrested from the spot.” It noted that PW33’s testimony showed that he intercepted the car after observing suspicious movement and, upon searching the first accused’s bag, recovered multiple forged documents. The Court observed that “the first accused is having no case that PW33 is having any animosity for roping him in a false case and that even after cross examination, his evidence remains credible.” It further stated that PWs 1 and 2 admitted their signatures in the seizure mahazar, which supported the evidence of PW33.
Regarding the genuineness of the seized documents, the Court referred to the evidence of PW23 and PW24 and recorded that “Exts.P69 and P70 certificates of Mahatma Gandhi University are fake, since the dates, as reflected in them, relates to a period even before the University came into existence and also that the signature in Ext.P71 is not that of the Vice Chancellor of Kerala University.” The Court also noted the expert opinion and observed that “evidence of PW18, coupled with Ext.P7 report shows that Exts.P69 to P71 certificate/mark lists are in the handwritings of the 1st accused.”
On the admissibility of specimen handwriting collected during investigation, the Court stated that “in the absence of any legal provision proscribing the investigating agency from obtaining specimens of handwriting/signature… there is no bar for the investigating agency to collect such specimen handwriting and rely upon the same.” The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement to conclude that there was no illegality in collecting handwriting specimens.
Addressing the argument that the offence of forgery was not made out, the Court referred to Sections 463 and 464 IPC. It recorded that “the document must be made by a person ‘dishonestly’ or ‘fraudulently’.” The Court analysed the meaning of “fraudulently” and quoted the Apex Court’s explanation that “injury is something other than economic loss… and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others.” The Court further observed that “forging of University Certificates/Mark lists… will undoubtedly, result in causing harm to the reputation, credibility and integrity of academic institutions apart from causing harm to the students and their future.” It found no error in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.
Regarding sentence, the Court noted the age of the accused, the year of occurrence, and circumstances of the case and recorded that the original sentence “is on a higher side and the same can be modified and reduced.”
The Court held that “the conviction of the revision petitioner/1st accused under Section 465 IPC… is upheld. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/1st accused under Section 465 IPC is modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the revision petitioner/1st accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Set off, if any, is also granted.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Liji J. Vadakedom, Smt. Rexy Elizabeth Thomas, Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George
For the Respondents: Smt. Maya M.N., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Mohammed Abbas v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:88535
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No.1227 of 2017
Bench: Justice P. V. Balakrishnan
