Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Anil Kumar, S/o Chellappan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1387 of 2018
Decided on : 26-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 - Forgery and use of forged documents - The petitioner, convicted under Section 471 for using a forged document, challenged the conviction citing lack of evidence proving forgery and production of the document. The trial and appellate courts found circumstantial evidence insufficient for conviction. (Paras 3, 6, 9)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused produced and used a forged document. The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner led to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Revision Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that it can correct judgments suffering from gross illegality, and found that the lower courts failed to appreciate evidence correctly. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of using a forged certificate to gain employment, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence. The first accused, who allegedly forged the document, had died before trial.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the document was forged or that the petitioner produced it.
Issues: The main issues were whether the document was forged and whether the petitioner produced it before the Medical Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proof of forgery or direct evidence of production, the conviction under Section 471 was not sustainable.
Result: The revision petition is allowed, and the conviction is set aside.
Key Points: - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the document is forged and that the accused produced it; absence of such evidence renders conviction unsustainable (!) (!) . - The revision court has inherent power to correct judgments suffering from gross illegality when lower courts misapprehend evidence (!) . - There is a lack of direct evidence proving who forged Ext.P1 and who produced it before the Medical Council; circumstantial evidence alone did not suffice for conviction under section 471 r/w 465 (!) (!) . - Burden is on the prosecution to prove possession and use of a forged document as genuine; best witness to prove production before the Medical Council was not examined (!) (!) . - The court set aside the impugned conviction and allowed the revision petition, directing factual reconsideration and relief to the petitioner (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s prior deposits regarding fine were addressed and directions were issued to refund amounts (!) .
ORDER :
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No. 74 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the trial court'). The offence alleged are under Sections 465, 468 , 471 r/w 34 of IPC .
2. The 1st accused was working as a Clerical Assistant in the office of the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, 'the KPSC'), Thiruvananthapuram. The 2nd accused/petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Travancore Cochin Medical Council, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution case in short is that, the 1st accused forged Ext.P1 certificate which showed that the 2nd accused had passed the departmental test and thereafter the latter produced and used it as original before the Travancore Cochin Medical Council, Thiruvananthapuram. It was alleged that the accused shared a common intention and committed the offence.
3. The 1st accused expired during trial. The petitioner alone faced trial for the offences under Sections 465, 468 , 471 r/w 34 of IPC . On the side of the prosecution, PW 1 to PW 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found that the petitioner had committed offence punishable under Section 471 r/w 465 of IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 471 r/w 465 of IPC . He was found not guilty for the offence under Section 468 of IPC and he was acquitted for the said offence. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No. 101 of 2016. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce legal evidence to prove that Ext.P1 is a forged document and in the absence of proof of forgery, no conviction under Section 471 of IPC is possible. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that it was the petitioner, who produced Ext.P1 certificate before the Medical Council and in the absence of such proof, the conviction under Section 471 of IPC for possession and use of a forged document is not sustainable. The learned counsel added that the impugned conviction and sentence are vitiated by illegality and impropriety.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record are sufficient to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 471 r/w 465 of IPC and re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in a revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of IPC .
6. It is not in dispute that the 1st accused was working as a clerk in the Departmental Test Wing of KPSC and the petitioner was employed in the Travancore Cochin Medical Council, Thiruvananthapuram at the relevant point of time. The specific case of the prosecution is that Ext.P1 is a forged document. It was alleged that the 1st accused committed forgery, handed it over to the petitioner and he used it as genuine. The trial court found that there is evidence to show that Ext.P1 is a forged document. However, the trial court found that there is no evidence to show that it was the 1st accused who forged the document. The said finding was upheld by the appellate court. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court found that there is no direct evidence to prove that it was the petitioner who produced Ext.P1 document before the Medical Council. However, based on circumstantial evidence and also taking into account the fact tha
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a document is forged and that the accused produced it; absence of such evidence renders conviction unsustainable.
The court upheld conviction for forgery despite the absence of economic loss, emphasizing harm to institutional integrity as sufficient for fraud under Section 465 IPC.
The reliance solely on expert evidence without corroboration can lead to erroneous convictions, especially when a civil ruling has nullified the document in question.
(1) Cheating and forgery – While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish guilt of accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that alle....
The onus of proof that the accused brought forth a forged document with a view to cheating rested with the prosecution, and the vital link in the chain of circumstances against the accused was essent....
Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence; it corrects illegality or impropriety in lower court’s orders.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 471 IPC for using a forged driving licence as genuine, confirming that the evidence established the accused's knowledge of the forgery.
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
