The Madhya Pradesh High Court Observed that a marksheet cannot be considered to be a valuable security.
In Ghanshyam Patel V/s State of Madhya Pradesh Crno. 3829 of 2018, the Madhya Pradesh High Court deals with the issue relating to Section 467 of IPC.
Facts of case
The applicant’s younger brother Raghunath Patel by picturing himself to be the present applicant secured employment in South Eastern Coalfield Limited (SECL) by using the present applicant’s marksheet and documents.
For which an FIR was lodged against him an investigation was conducted and hence matter reached the court. The applicant filed a revision petition against the charges framed by the lower court. Section 120 B, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC.
To know about these section they are explained as follows:Â Â
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—
Whoever forges a document which purports to be valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating –
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record] –
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
Arguments of case
There are some arguments argued by the petitioner that a marksheet cannot be considered to be a valuable security to bring the sec 467 of IPC. He submitted that the petitioner had not tempered with or forged the marks sheet. Hence, there is no material to charge u/s 468 IPC against him. The prosecution story did not rely on the fact that the petitioner had alleged the act to secure his own gain u/s 471 IPC.
Also Read: Bombay High Court reserves order on bail plea of Anil Deshmukh’s Aide
Decision of Case
The Court found that a mark sheet cannot be considered to be a valuable security for the purpose of sec 467 IPC. The Court also noticed that charges under sections 467 and 471 IPC against the petitioner could not stand their ground.
The court observed that sec 468 and sec 471 aimed against the person who has used the forged document against the genuine document. According to the prosecution facts, it was clear that the applicant cannot tamper with and fraudulently used the document for obtaining employment or other use.
With the observation, the court held that no case was made against the petitioner u/s 467,468 and 471 of IPC so the order of the lower court was set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High court. Further, the court held that the framing of charges against the petitioner was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the lower court to consider if any other charges were framed they will be levied on the petitioner.
