Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(MP) 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Pradeep Mittal, J.
Aakash Pansoriya – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4480 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Amit Garg, Government Advocate

An educational marksheet does not constitute 'valuable security' under the penal code. Where an attempt to obtain fraudulent benefits is intercepted before completion, the accused is liable for an attempted offence rather than the substantive charge of cheating.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 222, 374, 386 - Forgery and cheating in recruitment process - Accused submitted a false marksheet to secure government employment - Whether marksheet constitutes 'valuable security' under Section 467 - Held, based on judicial precedent, an educational marksheet does not qualify as 'valuable security' or corporeal property - Conviction under Section 467 and 468 set aside in absence of proof of creation of forged document by the accused. (Paras 22, 28, 32)

(B) Cheating - Attempted offence - Prosecution proved that accused submitted false document to obtain employment - Process of recruitment halted during verification - Offence of cheating not consummated - Conviction altered to attempt under Section 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code - Sentence modified to period already undergone. (Paras 41, 42, 43, 45)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was selected for a government post provided he cleared document verification. During verification, a submitted marksheet was found to be forged, as the issuing authority confirmed no such examination took place in the year recorded. The trial court convicted the appellant for forgery and cheating. On appeal, it was argued that the marksheet was obtained from a third party and that the offence of cheating was incomplete as no employment was obtained.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the marksheet is not a 'valuable security' and the prosecution failed to prove the appellant was the creator of the forgery. However, the appellant had 'reason to believe' the document was false given the chronological discrepancies. As the employment was not secured, the offence was deemed an attempt.

Issues: Whether an educational marksheet qualifies as a valuable security; whether the absence of employment procurement reduces the charge of cheating to an attempt; and whether sufficient evidence exists to prove the appellant knowingly utilized a forged document.

Ratio Decidendi: A marksheet does not satisfy the statutory definition of 'valuable security'. While the appellant is not the creator of the forged document, his knowledge of its falsity is established by the inconsistency between the marksheet year and examination records. Furthermore, where an attempt to secure employment via fraud is interrupted during verification, the substantive offence of cheating is not complete; hence, a conviction for attempt is appropriate.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Sections 467 and 468 set aside, conviction under Section 471 confirmed, and conviction under Section 420 altered to 420/511.

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.04.2025 passed by 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No.841/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 Years R.I., 5 Years R.I., 2 Years R.I. and 2 Years R.I. with fine of Rs.200/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2017, a direct recruitment process was conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Police for the post of Constable (Band). Pursuant to the selection process, an order dated 22.09.2017 was issued by the Inspector General of Police directing that appointments of selected candidates be finalized subject to mandatory verification of their credentials.

3. The accused, Akash Pansoria, was one of the candidates selected under the said recruitment and was allotted to the 7th Battalion, SAF (Visbal), Bhopal. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Commandant of the Battalion initiated verification of the accused’s documents, including his educational qualifications.

4. During the course of verification, the accused submitted a High School marksheet purportedly issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Open School, Bhopal. The said marksheet was forwarded to the concerned Board for authentication. Upon scrutiny, the Board authorities found that the particulars mentioned in the marksheet did not match their official records. Consequently, the document was declared false, forged, and fabricated.

5. On 23.11.2017, the Assistant Director (Records) of the Board communicated the said discrepancy to the authorities and requested initiation of appropriate legal action against the accused. Thereafter, on 29.11.2017, the Commandant, 7th Battalion, SAF, submitted a formal complaint to the Superintendent of Police (South), Bhopal, reporting that the accused had used a forged marksheet in order to secure government employment.

6. The matter was subsequently forwarded to Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal, where it was entered into the police station records on 12.12.2017 for preliminary inquiry. Upon completion of the inquiry, it was prima facie found that the accused had committed acts of cheating and forgery. Accordingly, Crime No. 35/2018 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer carried out spot inspection and prepared a site map. Relevant documents, including the forged marksheet, were seized. The accused was taken into custody, and his memorandum statement was recorded, leading to further discovery of facts. Statements of witnesses were also recorded to substantiate the allegations.

8. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. Considering the seriousness of the offence, particularly under Section 467 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

9. The accused abjured guilt and pleaded not guilty, claiming to be tried. Consequently, the case proceeded to the stage of recording of evidence.

10. The prosecution alleges that the accused knowingly and dishonestly used a forged and fabricated marksheet as genuine with the intention of securing a government employment, thereby committing offences of cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record and is liable to be set aside.

12. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in convicting the appellant under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code without the prosecution having established the foundational ingredients of “forgery” as defined under Sections 4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURPradeep Mittal, J.Aakash Pansoriya – AppellantVersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 4480 of 2025Decided On : 20-03-2026

An educational marksheet does not constitute 'valuable security' under the penal code. Where an attempt to obtain fraudulent benefits is intercepted before completion, the accused is liable for an attempted offence rather than the substantive charge of cheating.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Pradeep Mittal, J.
Aakash Pansoriya – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4480 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026