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.

ORDER :

P. V. Balakrishnan, J.

Under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 465 of IPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the 1^st accused in CC No.189 of 2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kanjirappally. He, along with nine other accused, stood trial before that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 9 hatched a conspiracy to forge certificates and mark lists of Kerala University, Mahatma Gandhi University, Department of Technical Education in Government of Kerala, etc., for selling the same to their customers and thereby to deceive the above institutions. The 4^th accused made DTPs of the certificates and mark lists and handed over the same to the 3^rd accused to make forged certificates. The 3^rd accused also made counterfeit seals of the institutions and affixed the seals on forged certificates and mark lists. Accused Nos. 5 to 8 converted the DTPs into polymasters in their press and made fake certificates and mark lists. Accused No.10 made a false attestation of the Embassy of the Ministry of Human Resources of the United Arab Emirates in New Delhi and accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 9 distributed some of these certificates and mark lists to their customers. It is when the 1^st accused who was travelling in a car driven by the 2^nd accused carrying the forged certificates and mark lists, along the Kottayam-Kumali road, was apprehended by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally, it led to the unravelling of the entire conspiracy and the crime.

4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record found accused Nos. 2 to 6, 9 and 10 not guilty of the offences alleged and acquitted them. The case against the 7^th accused was closed as abated, and the case against the 8^th accused was split up and re-filed. The trial court also found the 1^st accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420,468,471,472,473,474,120B read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted him thereof. But, it found the 1^st accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 465 IPC and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the 1^st accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 465 IPC, with a default clause.

5. The 1^st accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No. 362 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kottayam. The said court, by judgment dated 20.06.2017, dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Adv.Liji J Vadakedom, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Adv.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the 1^st accused. He, by relying on the decision in Suresh K.K. v. State of Kerala (2022 KHC 8105) contended that the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, does not permit the investigation officer to take specimen handwritings of the accused during the investigation stage, and therefore, Ext.P9 specimen handwriting, which is relied on by the prosecution to prove that Exts.P69 to P71 documents were forged by the