Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakash Pansoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
1 CRA-4480-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4480 of 2025
AAKASH PANSORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Garg - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
2 CRA-4480-2025
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
3 CRA-4480-2025
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 463 and 464 IPC. It is argued that to sustain a
conviction under Section 467 IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
4 CRA-4480-2025
prove that the accused himself made or fabricated the alleged forged
document. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence to
demonstrate that the appellant was the maker or creator of the alleged forged
marksheet.
13. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case merely
establishes that the marksheet was found to be forged, but there is no
evidence connecting the appellant with the act of its preparation or
fabrication. Mere possession or use of a document, in absence of proof of its
creation, cannot attract the offence under Section 467 IPC.
14. It is also contended that the memorandum statement of the appellant
recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly reveals that the
appellant had obtained the said marksheet from one Vishnu Parashar, who
was running a coaching institute at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. This explanation
was consistently maintained by the appellant during his examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lends assurance to his
defence and probabilizes his lack of knowledge regarding the forged nature
of the document.
15. Learned counsel argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that
the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the marksheet was
forged. In absence of such knowledge or mens rea, the essential ingredients
of forgery are not satisfied, and therefore the conviction under Section 467
IPC cannot be sustained.
16. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the
prosecution suffers from serious infirmities. Despite the appellant having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
5 CRA-4480-2025
disclosed the source of the document, no effective steps were taken to
investigate the role of the said Vishnu Parashar. Although it was later
revealed that the said person had expired, the prosecution made no effort to
trace the origin of the forged marksheet or to identify the actual perpetrator
of the forgery. This failure to collect the best possible evidence renders the
prosecution case doubtful.
17. Learned counsel thus submits that in the absence of any evidence
proving that the appellant made or fabricated the document, and in the
absence of proof of requisite criminal intent to cause damage or injury, the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 467 IPC are not made out.
18. Accordingly, it is prayed that the conviction of the appellant under
Section 467 IPC be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of the said
charge.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court. It is submitted that the prosecution has duly proved that the marksheet
submitted by the appellant was false and fabricated, as confirmed by the
competent authority of the M.P. Rajya Open Shiksha Parishad, Bhopal.
Learned counsel for the State further contends that the appellant himself
produced the said marksheet during the recruitment process for securing
government employment and thereby represented it to be genuine. Such
conduct clearly establishes that the appellant used a forged document for
obtaining unlawful gain. It is also argued that even if the appellant claims that
the marksheet was provided by one Vishnu Parashar, the same does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
6 CRA-4480-2025
absolve him of criminal liability. The appellant was under a legal obligation
to verify the authenticity of the document before using it for official
purposes. His failure to do so, coupled with the fact that the marksheet
pertains to a year in which no examination was conducted, clearly indicates
that he acted with intent to deceive. Learned counsel further submits that the
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has
not committed any illegality in recording the conviction. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper evaluation of documentary
as well as oral evidence and do not call for interference by this Court. It is,
therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court be affirmed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
20. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
stated that Vishnu Parashar, who used to run coaching classes, had provided
him the marksheet. He further stated that he had appeared in the examination
conducted by the Open School and thereafter the marksheet was given to
him, and that he had no knowledge that the same was false. However, the
Assistant Director (Records), M.P. Rajya Open Shiksha Parishad, Bhopal,
vide letter dated 23.11.2017, confirmed that the marksheet did not match
with the official record and was thus false and fabricated. Further, vide letter
dated 20.11.2019, it has been informed that one Seema Pandey (Roll No.
0301920690) had appeared in the examination in the year 2009, and that no
examination was conducted in the year 2010, which is the year mentioned in
the marksheet submitted by the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
7 CRA-4480-2025
said Vishnu Parashar expired on 01.01.2015 and, therefore, could not be
examined before the Court.
21. On a careful appreciation of the entire record, this Court proceeds to
examine whether the offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code are made out against the appellant, and if not, whether the
offence under Section 420 IPC is established.
22. Learned counsel of appellant argued that the marksheet is not
considered a “valuable security” or a corporeal property for the purpose of
certain criminal charges. Marksheet is not a tangible corporeal property that
can be transferred, consumed, or spent, unlike movable property (e.g., money
or jewelry). Incorporeal property is defined as the ownership of a property
that cannot be touched or felt. Hence, it is intangible in nature. For instance,
shares, copyrights, patents, trademarks, stakes, among others are intangible
or incorporeal properties. Therefore, the mark sheet does not cover in the
definition of the property. Learned counsel further submitted that the
marksheet 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 proved. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamdhikari Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1980) 4 SCC 551. Therefore, appellant/accused may be acquitted from the
aforesaid offences.
23. Definition “Document” is given in the section 29 of the Indian penal
code. According to that the word “document” denotes any matter expressed
or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
8 CRA-4480-2025
more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as
evidence of that matter. Explanation 1. -It is immaterial by what means or
upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the
evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not.
24. Section 470 of the Indian Penal code define Forged document.-A false
document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is
designated a forged document or electronic record. It is also clear that the
copy prepared by photocopy machine is also a document. It is immaterial by
what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed,
or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice,
or not. Therefore, It is not required that the original of the photocopy also
exist there. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable that
the photocopy document not covered in the definition of the document.
25. Section 467 of the Indian Penal code define Forgery of valuable
security, will, etc.-Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports
to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or
to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver
any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document
purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property
or valuable security, shall be punished with 4 [imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
9 CRA-4480-2025
26. Section 30 of the Indian Penal code define “Valuable security”. –
The words “valuable security” denotes a document which is, or purports to
be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred,
restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges
that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
27. Learned counsel placed reliance in the case of Shriniwas Pandit
Dharmadhikari (supra), wherein the certificates were forged to get admission
in college and the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“……….as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467
I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found
to have forged to get admission in the Arts the Commerce College affiliated
to Poona University could be described as ‘valuable security’ as the
expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Panel Code. We therefore
alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471
reads with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code…… ”
28. The Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari (supra) and came
to hold that mark-sheet is not a ‘valuable security’ within the meaning of
Section 467, 468 of the IPC. I am bound by the aforesaid judgment and in
view of said judgment constraint to hold that the charge against the applicant
under Section 467 of the IPC is not sustainable.
29. Reliance also placed in case of Ghanshyam Patel @ Lallu Vs. State. The
facts of the case Ghanshyam Patel was that there is no allegation against the
present applicant that he has either tampered the document or fraudulently
used this document for obtaining the employment or for any other purpose.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
10 CRA-4480-2025
The allegation is made against the co-accused Raghunath Patel that he has
impostered himself as applicant and used educational qualification
documents of present applicant. But in present case the allegation against the
present appellant that he had knowingly used this document for obtaining the
employment or for any other purpose. Hence, above cited judgement not
applicable to present case.
30. Section 468 of the Indian Penal code define forgery for purpose of
cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1 [document or
electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sections 468 begin
with the expression ‘whoever commits forgery, the intention of law makers is
clear that these provisions are aimed against the person who has prepared
forged document as a genuine document. There is no evidence the accused
prepared forged document other hand it was explained by the accused the
mark sheet given by the Vishnu Parashar to him. That provision only the
creator of the document there for accused cannot punished for the offence
468 of the IPC.
31. At the outset, it is an admitted position that the marksheet submitted
by the appellant during the recruitment process has been found to be false
and fabricated by the competent authority. Thus, the falsity of the document
stands duly proved. Above findings recorded by trial court is not disputed
before this court.
32. However, so far as the offence under Section 467 and 468 IPC is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
11 CRA-4480-2025
concerned, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that the appellant
himself made or fabricated the forged document. In the present case, there is
absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant was the maker or
creator of the marksheet. The prosecution has failed to connect the appellant
with the preparation of the forged document. On the contrary, the defence
taken by the appellant that the marksheet was provided by Vishnu Parashar
remains unrebutted, and the said person could not be examined as he had
expired prior to trial. Further, no effective investigation has been conducted
to trace the origin of the forged document. In view of the law laid down in
the judgment quoted hereinabove, the marksheet cannot be treated as a
“valuable security”. For similar reasons, the offence under Section 468 IPC is
also not made out, as there is no material to establish that the appellant
himself forged the document for the purpose of cheating. The essential
ingredient of making a false document by appellant is missing. Accordingly,
the conviction under Section 467, 468 IPC is not sustainable.
33. Likewise, for attracting Section 471 IPC, it must be proved that the
appellant used the forged document as genuine with knowledge or reason to
believe that it was forged. In this regard, although the appellant has taken a
defence that he had no knowledge about the falsity of the marksheet, an
important circumstance on record cannot be ignored. The marksheet
submitted by the appellant pertains to the year 2010, whereas it is clearly
established by the Board’s letter dated 20.11.2019 that no examination was
conducted in the year 2010. This is a fundamental discrepancy, which could
have been easily verified by the appellant. A prudent person would not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
12 CRA-4480-2025
accept or rely upon a marksheet of a year in which no examination was held
at all.
34. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused 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 Open university,
Bhopal and the appellant/accused was not aware of the falsity of that mark-
sheet. Definition reason to believe is given in the section 26 of the Indian
penal code. According to that a person is said to have “reason to believe” a
thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. It is
proved by the prosecution evidence that the photocopy of mark sheet
attached with the application form was forged. The plea of the accused that,
the Vishnu Parashar use to operate a coaching class and he gave him a
photocopy of the mark sheet which was attached by him with application
form. He does not know that mark sheet was forged. Once the prosecution
proved that mark sheet was forged the burden of prove shift on the accused
that he proved that fact was not in knowledge of the accused, it is well settled
without entered in the examination no mark sheet have been issued to the
student. Appellant has failed to prove that he was entered in the examination
of Open University in the year of 2010. It is clearly proved by later of
Registrar of Open University that, in 2010 no examination was conducted by
him and it is also proved that disputed mark sheet issued in 2009 in the name
of Seema not to the name of appellant. Hence it is very well proved that the
fact of forged mark sheet was in the knowledge of the appellant. The
argument is not accepted the fact of forged mark sheet did not in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
13 CRA-4480-2025
knowledge of the appellant.
35. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code define the using as genuine a
forged document or electronic record. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly
uses as genuine any 3 [document or electronic record] which he knows or
has reason to believe to be a forged 3 [document or electronic record], shall
be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 3 [document or
electronic record]. It is proved by the evidence the accused had knowledge
that the mark sheet is not genuine and he used it for getting appointment.
Therefore, offence under 471 of PC is proved.
36. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients
of offences under Sections 467, 468, IPC, and the appellant is entitled to
acquittal for the said offences.
37. However, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant
submitted the said false marksheet before the authorities during the
recruitment process for securing government employment. The document has
been found to be false, and by producing the same, the appellant represented
it to be genuine and induced the authorities to consider his candidature.
38. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code define the cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property.–Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
14 CRA-4480-2025
be liable to fine.
39. It is emerging from the definition of cheating the following ingredients
of the offence of cheating as follows:
(1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker
knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
(2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.”
40. “Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is
evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly
make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or
to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless
deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind,
reputation or property.”, the court added.
41. In Ishwarlal Girdharilal v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1969 SC 40 the
Supreme Court held that the word ‘Property’ as mentioned in Section 420
IPC does not necessarily mean that the thing of which a delivery is
dishonestly desired by the person who cheats must have a money value or a
market value in the hand of the person cheated. Even if the thing has no
money value in the hand of the person cheated but becomes a thing of value
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
15 CRA-4480-2025
in the hand of the person who may get possession of it as a result of the
cheating practised by him it would fall within the connotation of the term
‘property’. In Abhayanand v/s State of Bihar 1961 (2) Crl. L.J. 822 SC it was
observed that an admission card to sit for an examination of a university is
property within the meaning of Sec. 420 IPC, though the admission card as
such has no pecuniary value it has immense value to the candidate for the
examination. Therefore, applying of the above view it is clear the
appointment order of government Job is cover in the definition of the
property.
42. Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed that
dishonest inducement was present. Until appellant would not have possessed
10th class mark sheet, the appellant was not legally entitled to secure the
question post. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the appellant knowingly
makes a false statement which would induce employer to issued appointment
order in favour of appellant. It is noted that before issuing a appointment
order it was come to the knowledge that the appellant has submitted forged
copy of the marks sheet and employer doesn’t issuing appointment later.
Therefore, the offence of cheating was not completed, it was only attempted
to get job on the basis of forged mark sheet. Hence the accused could not be
convicted for offence of cheating, punishment ought to be offence of attempt
under 420 read with 511 IPC.
43. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420
IPC, namely deception and dishonest inducement, stand proved. The
appellant, by submitting a false marksheet in order to secure public
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23560
16 CRA-4480-2025
employment, attempted to obtain an undue advantage but he could not
succeed in getting employment therefore the act of the accused is an attempt
and not secured the employment it means the offence was not completed.
Therefore, accused be convicted with the add of section 511 of the Indian
penal code in place of individual 420 of the IPC.
44. Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if a person is
charged with a major offence but evidence shows only an attempt, a
conviction for the attempt is permitted, even if the attempt was not separately
charged. Section 386(b) of CrPC give Powers of the Appellate Court in an
appeal from a conviction, the appellate court can alter the finding while
maintaining the sentence or alter the nature/extent of the sentence without
enhancing it. Section 511 of IPC provide that if the evidence shows that the
accused had the intent and took a direct step towards the main offence but
failed to complete it, they can be convicted of an attempt altering the
conviction to an “attempt” does not cause prejudice to the accused, the facts
brought on record already support the attempt.
45. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing analysis and findings, this Court
passes the following order:
(i) The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the said charges. The fine amount, if deposited or recovered for
these offences, shall be refunded to him.
(ii) As the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant, by
submitting a false marksheet pertaining to a non-existent examination year,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2356017 CRA-4480-2025
deceived the authorities and attempted to secure government employment.
The conviction of the appellant under Section 471, of the Indian Penal Code
is hereby affirmed, and the conviction under 420 of the IPC is altered into
420/511 of the IPC.
(iii) So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the
appellant remained in custody during trial for a period of 42 days and is in
custody from the date of judgment i.e. 22.04.2025 till date. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the conviction now
survives only under Section 471, 420 / 511 IPC, this Court finds it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment to
the period already undergone by the appellant.
(iv) The fine imposed for the offence under Section 471, 420 IPC is
maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo the
sentence as directed by the trial Court.
(v) The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
46. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with the
record for information and compliance.
47. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-03-2026
19:14:44