'Forgery Need Not Cause Monetary Loss': Kerala HC Upholds Conviction For Fake University Certificates, Cites Harm To Academic Integrity

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment while upholding the conviction of a man found in possession of forged university certificates.

The revision petitioner had been convicted by the trial court for forging university certificates, a conviction later affirmed by the appellate court. Although he was acquitted of conspiracy and cheating-related offences, he found him guilty under Section 465 IPC for making forged documents.

The revision petitioner, approached the Court contending that the forged documents had not been used to obtain any wrongful gain or advantage or has resulted in any wrongful loss to anyone. By relying on Suresh K K v State of Kerala (2022 KHC 8105), it was contended that the specimen handwriting taken by the prosecution was obtained during investigation and hence cannot be relied upon according to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.

The Court rejected the argument that the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 bars police from taking specimens during the course of investigation by relying on Santosh @ Bhure v State (GNCT) of Delhi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 538) which held that in the in the absence of any legal provision proscribing the investigating agency from obtaining specimens of handwriting/signature, there is no bar for the investigating agency to collect such specimen handwriting and rely upon the same.

“Considering the fact that no bar is placed in the Identification of Prisoners Act from taking specimen handwriting from the accused, I have no hesitation to find that there is no illegality in the investigating officer collecting specimen handwriting of the accused and also in the trial court and the appellate court relying on the evidence of PW18, who has compared the handwriting, …” the bench noted.

The Court examined Section 464 of IPC which deals with making a false document, and observed the document must be made by a person“dishonestly” or “fraudulently”. It noted that the words are used alternatively, indicating that one excludes the other. It further went on to examine the definition of Section 24 and Section 25 which deals with the definition of "dishonesty" and “fraudulently”.

The Court observed that in order to attract Section 24, a pecuniary or economic gain or loss is the requirement unlike Section 25, which excludes that element.

Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Vimla v Delhi Administration and State of U P v Ranjith Singh, the Court observed that in order to fall within the ambit of 'fraudulently', the injury may include harm caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or “such other”.

The Court observed that “such other” act as a residual category for all non-pecuniary injury

“It is intended to cover every species of detriment that may not be expressly enumerated but is nonetheless real, intangible and directly attributable to the act of deceit. If so, it can include injury to institutional credibility, erosion/harm to public confidence, impairment of academic integrity, sanctity of officials seal, etc.”

The Court observed that forging of University Certificates/ Mark lists will result in harm to the reputation, credibility and integrity of academic institutions apart from causing harm to the students and their future.

The Court thus did not find any illegality or error in finding the accused guilty under Section 465 IPC. But the Court allowed the revision petition in part by reducing the sentence imposed to simple imprisonment for a period of one year instead of two years.

Case Title: Mohammed Abbas v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. R. P. 1227/ 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 775

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Liji J Vadakedom, Rexy Elizabeth thomas, Rajeev Jyothish George

Counsel for Respondent: Maya M N (PP)