Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Main Point: The Supreme Court and various courts have consistently held that a mark sheet or educational certificate is not a ‘valuable security’ within the meaning of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Therefore, forging such documents does not constitute an offence under Section 467. ["ASHISH SINGH SURYAVANSHI vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Rajesh Desai VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"] ["SUBHASH CHAND S/O SHRI GURUDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["Ghanshyam Ptel @ Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"] ["GHANSHYAM PATEL @ LALLU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 569"] ["Ghanshyam Ptel @ Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"] ["DIGANTA BORAH vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"] ["TAPAN DAS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"] ["BARASHA KALITA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"] ["DR. SARAT KUMAR DUTTA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]
Supporting Insights:
The legal definition of ‘valuable security’ under Section 30 IPC involves documents that create, transfer, or acknowledge legal rights or liabilities, which does not include educational certificates or mark sheets ["DIGANTA BORAH vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["ASHISH SINGH SURYAVANSHI vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Rajesh Desai VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["SUBHASH CHAND S/O SHRI GURUDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]- ["Ghanshyam Ptel @ Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["GHANSHYAM PATEL @ LALLU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 569"]- ["Ghanshyam Ptel @ Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["DIGANTA BORAH vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]- ["TAPAN DAS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]- ["BARASHA KALITA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]- ["DR. SARAT KUMAR DUTTA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]
In the world of legal disputes involving forged documents, one question frequently arises: Does a mark sheet qualify as a 'valuable security' under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? This issue came to the forefront in the landmark case Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari v. State of Maharashtra. If you're dealing with educational document forgery, understanding this ruling can clarify potential charges and defenses. This post breaks down the judgment, precedents, and practical implications—remember, this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Users often search for summaries of cases like Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari v. State of Maharashtra regarding whether mark sheets are 'valuable security'. The straightforward answer from the courts: No, a mark sheet is not a 'valuable security' within the meaning of Section 467 IPC. Forgery or misuse of such documents typically does not attract charges under this section, which punishes forgery of valuable securities. Instead, other provisions like Sections 465 (forgery) or 471 (using forged documents) may apply. State represented by The Inspector of Police Nagercoil VS S. Raju @ Raju Bharathi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 76
This position aligns with established judicial precedents, emphasizing that mark sheets merely evidence qualifications but do not create or transfer legal rights or liabilities.
Section 30 IPC defines a 'valuable security' as a document which creates, extends, transfers, restricts, extinguishes, or releases any legal right, or which evidences the creation, extension, or release of any such right or liability. Courts have repeatedly stressed this distinction. A mark sheet, while important for admissions or jobs, does not inherently create legal rights—it serves as proof of academic performance. K. K. Pandey VS Narpat Singh - 1972 0 Supreme(Raj) 235
For instance, the Supreme Court has clarified: The primary distinction is that a ‘valuable security’ must create, extend, transfer, restrict, extinguish, or release a legal right or liability, which a mark sheet does not do. K. K. Pandey VS Narpat Singh - 1972 0 Supreme(Raj) 235
The foundation for this ruling lies in Shaikh Noor Mohamad v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that forged certificates used for college admission do not qualify as 'valuable security'. The Court modified convictions from Sections 467 and 471 to Sections 465 and 471, noting: forged certificates used to gain admission in a college cannot be termed ‘valuable security’. State represented by The Inspector of Police Nagercoil VS S. Raju @ Raju Bharathi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 76
This precedent directly influenced subsequent cases, including Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari.
A Division Bench in Mahendra Kumar Shukla followed suit, explicitly stating a mark sheet is not a ‘valuable security’ within Section 467 IPC. GHANSHYAM PATEL @ LALLU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 569
In the principal case, the court adhered to these ratios. Mark sheets do not create, extend, or transfer legal rights, so forgery charges under Section 467 fail. The judgment reinforces that educational documents like mark sheets are outside the 'valuable security' ambit for criminal law purposes. This settled position prevents overreach in prosecutions. State represented by The Inspector of Police Nagercoil VS S. Raju @ Raju Bharathi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 76
Recent cases echo this view. In one matter, the court noted: in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari (cited supra), this Court is also inclined to hold that the provisions of Section 467 of IPC are not applicableK.Venkat Ramulu vs The State of Telangana - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 26054. Even arguments that academic certificates 'may not be a valuable security' but warrant other charges were acknowledged, yet Section 467 was sidelined. Rekha Kumari, d/o Chunilal Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 374
Similarly, in bail applications: come in the category of Valuable Security, therefore, the offence under Section 467 IPC is not made out against the applicant/accused... Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of MaharashtraAJAY KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHANDGAURAV CHAND vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. These affirm the non-applicability across jurisdictions.
However, forgery isn't without consequences. In a case involving a fraudulently obtained B.Ed. certificate used for employment, the court held: A person can be held liable for forgery and cheating if they collude in the creation and use of a forged document, even if they are not the direct maker. Charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 468, and 471 proceeded, emphasizing collusion and dishonest intent. This shows mark sheets may escape Section 467 but not broader forgery laws.
Courts distinguish based on function: mere evidentiary value vs. right-creating effect.
The Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari v. State of Maharashtra case solidifies that mark sheets are not 'valuable security' under IPC Sections 30 and 467. This protects against inflated charges while upholding accountability via other forgery provisions. Backed by Supreme Court wisdom in Shaikh Noor MohamadState represented by The Inspector of Police Nagercoil VS S. Raju @ Raju Bharathi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 76 and consistent lower court applications K.Venkat Ramulu vs The State of Telangana - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 26054, the law prioritizes substance over form.
Key Takeaways:- Mark sheets ≠ Valuable Security (Sections 30, 467 IPC).- Use Sections 465/471/420 for forgeries.- Collusion in forgery attracts liability.- Always evaluate document's legal effect.
This evolving area underscores the need for precise charging. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on IPC interpretations to navigate document-related disputes effectively.
References:1. Shaikh Noor Mohamad v. State of Maharashtra State represented by The Inspector of Police Nagercoil VS S. Raju @ Raju Bharathi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 762. Mahendra Kumar Shukla GHANSHYAM PATEL @ LALLU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 5693. Additional precedents K. K. Pandey VS Narpat Singh - 1972 0 Supreme(Raj) 235K.Venkat Ramulu vs The State of Telangana - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 26054Rekha Kumari, d/o Chunilal Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 374
#IPCForgery #ValuableSecurity #LegalPrecedents
Relying on the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Shukla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamdhikari Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1980) 4 SCC 551. Therefore, petitioner/accused may be discharged from the aforesaid offences. ... The first plank of submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petition....
Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari v. State of Maharashtra, and Shaikh Noor Mohamad Shaikh Fazal v. State of Maharashtra, which was disposed of by common order and, reported in (1980)4 SCC 551. ... State of Maharashtra [AIR 1981 SC 80], in which also, the Hon’ble apex Court laid down the same principles that document on the basis of which, the....
Lastly, he submitted that in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the certificates issued by colleges or authorities are not valuable security within the meaning of Sections 30 and 467 of IPC. ... State of M.P., and submitted that the marksheet is not a valuable security w....
has followed the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. ... State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 02/09/2022 opined that mark-sheet is not a 'valuable security' and therefore, offence under Section 467 of IPC is not sustainable. Thus, the charge so far it relates to Section 467/120-B of the IPC deserves to be interfered with. ... I am bound by the aforesaid judgment and in view of said judgment constraint to h....
State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 551 and came to hold that mark-sheet is not a ‘valuable security’ within the meaning of section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. ... The Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Kumar Shukla (supra) has followed the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. ... State of M. P., decided on 2-9-2022 opined that mark-sheet is not a ....
State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 551 and came to hold that mark-sheet is not a 'valuable security' within the meaning of Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. ... State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 02/09/2022 opined that mark-sheet is not a 'valuable security' and therefore, offence under Section 467 of IPC is not sustainable. ... (Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench in the c....
held as a valuable security under Section 30 of IPC. ... It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari Vs. ... However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari (cited supra), this Court is also inclined to hold that the provisions of Section 467 of IPC are not applicable to the facts of this case as the ....
It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that true it is that the academic certificate may not be a valuable security but certainly, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. ... State of Maharashtra (supra) but the same is not a ground to quash the entire cognizance order. 14. So far as the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case#HL_END....
come in the category of Valuable Security, therefore, the offence under Section 467 IPC is not made out against the applicant/accused. ... Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. ... State of Maharashtra and connected matters”, (1980) 4 SCC 551. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. ... Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, he does not dispute the fact as stated by counsel for the applicant/accused. ... v....
come in the category of Valuable Security, therefore, the offence under Section 467 IPC is not made out against the applicant/accused. ... Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. ... State of Maharashtra and connected matters”, (1980) 4 SCC 551. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. ... Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, he does not dispute the fact as stated by counsel for the applicant/accused. ... v....
3. Challenge to the retrospective recovery of such charges due to retrospective wage revision has been considered and negated at Aurangabad in judgment dated 10.7.2012 in Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & other Versus Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., after considering the provisions contained Section 58A and 114 in Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, Revised pay scales as per the Sixth Pay Commission were made applicable with retrospective effect from 1-1-2006 and direction was issued to recover the arrears. The State of Maharashtra & Others, to which one ....
Milind and ors. reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1: [2001(1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.)], in the case of Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. State of Mah. and ors. reported in (2012) SCC 549 : [2012(5) ALL MR 954 (S.C.)], in the case of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Mah. and ors. reported in 2012(7) SCALE 316 : [2012 ALL SCR 2393] and in the case of Shalini vs. 6. Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
31. Similar view was taken in the decision in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 551.
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
