A charge cannot be framed under IPC Section 467 if the document in question is not deemed a 'valuable security'.

O R D E R

At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the case diary is available and copy of the charge-sheet has also been filed and therefore, record of the Courts below would not be required to be called for hearing the matter, which is related to framing of the charge. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the parties are heard finally.

2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity " Cr.P.C .") by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar (M.P.) in S.T.No. 239/2023 (State of M.P. through SHO, Baheriya, District Sagar Vs. Ashish Singh and others) whereby charges have been framed under Sections 420 , 467 (in the alternative 467/34), 468 (in the alternative 468/34), 471 (in the alternative 471/34) and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner/accused.

3. The succinct facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.04.2016 inviting applications for various posts classified in 14 Groups, the petitioner/accused applied for the post of Constable (Cook). After due participation, the petitioner was selected and posted at Police Unit PTS Pachmarhi.

Thereafter his posting was changed to 1st Battalion SAF Indore.

3.1 During the course of appointment, the documents pertaining to educational and other qualifications of the petitioner/accused were examined by the concerned department, whereupon it was found that mark-sheet of Class-X was not genuine and same was obtained by the petitioner/accused from the co-accused Asad Ullaha Siddiquee, who is Director of the Symbiosis Higher Secondary School. The mark-sheet although is purported to have been issued by Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan, Bhopalam, but was found to have been forged during investigation. An FIR bearing Crime No.287/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC was registered.

3.2 After completion of the investigation, a final report has been filed and after committal of the case a Sessions Trial No.239/2023 was registered.

3.4 At trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.07.2024 has framed the charges against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and in alternate under Section 467 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34 and Section 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner/accused. It is submitted that ingredients of the offence do not constitute any charge against the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner/accused has got prepared a forged mark-sheet. In fact, the mark-sheet was issued by Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan, Bhopalam and the petitioner/accused was not aware of the falsity of that mark-sheet. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the mark-sheet cannot be held as valuable security within the meaning of the Section 30 of IPC therefore, the charge under Section 467 of IPC could not be framed. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamdhikari Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1980) 4 SCC 551. Therefore, petitioner/accused may be discharged from the aforesaid offences.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that it is not a case where there is no material produced by th