Mere Dishonest Claim Doesn’t Constitute False Document; Case Falls Short Of Standard Of Proof In Absence Of Mens Rea: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Srinagar (Trial Court) against the appellant who was booked in a case registered under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 468, 471 of the RPC. A direction was also passed for the recovery of pecuniary advantage of ₹2,19,757 from him.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar held, “Unless a document satisfies the ingredients of Sections 464 and 470, the offence under Section 471 cannot be attracted. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Supreme Court authoritatively explained that unless impersonation, unauthorised alteration, or fraudulent procurement is proved, execution of a document does not amount to forgery. Mere dishonest claim does not constitute a false document…”

“Applying the principles laid down in AIR 2025 SC 4193 and Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), the alleged fake matriculation certificate (Ex. NA/1) was never produced in original, was not seized from the appellant, did not relate to him, and its authorship was never proved. No expert evidence was led. Similarly, the alleged interpolation in the discharge certificate was not shown to have been done by the appellant. In absence of proof of authorship, exclusive control, or mens rea, the prosecution case falls short of the standard of proof required in criminal law”, it added.

Advocate G.A. Lone represented the Appellant while Sr. Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the appellant, a public servant employed at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura, Srinagar, abused his official position and illegally secured two promotions by producing a fake matriculation certificate and by tampering with his Army Discharge Certificate to falsely show his rank as Naik instead of Rifleman in JAKLI. Based on a preliminary enquiry, an FIR came to be registered for offences under Section 5(2) P.C. Act, read with Sections 468 and 471 RPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant secured undue promotions and drew excess emoluments amounting to ₹2,19,757.

The Trial Court concluded that the appellant had produced a fake matriculation certificate, got its photocopy attested, and retained the original with himself. The certificate, upon verification from BOSE, was found to be invalid and not in line with official records. The Trial Court further observed that the appellant failed to explain the interpolation in his Army Discharge Certificate, wherein “Naik” appeared in place of “Rifleman”. On these findings, the Trial Court concluded that the appellant had forged and used false documents to secure promotions and had drawn illegal pecuniary benefit. He was thus convicted.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the minutes of the Junior Selection Committee meetings, the Bench noted that the appellant’s case was evaluated on its own merits, and it was nowhere recorded that he was ineligible for promotion. The Bench was of the view that once the Selection Committee scrutinised and approved the appellant’s promotion, it was evident that the appellant could not have singlehandedly secured promotion unless supported by institutional processes.

“The alleged interpolation in the discharge certificate was never proved by production of the original or by expert evidence. The Army authorities did not attribute the interpolation to the appellant. In absence of direct evidence, the Trial Court erred in presuming authorship”, it added.

The Bench found that the alleged fake matriculation certificate was never produced in original form, was not seized from the appellant, did not relate to him, and its authorship was never proved. The Bench also added, “ In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove:

• preparation or alteration of documents by the appellant
• exclusive possession or control over forged documents
• knowledge of falsity
• dishonest intention.”

Holding that the appellant could not have been convicted on mere suspicion, the Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

Cause Title: Gh. Rasool Ganie v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (Case No.: CRA No. 3/2008)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates G.A. Lone, Mujeeb Andrabi

Respondent: Sr. Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, Assisting Counsel Maha Majeed

Click here to read/download Order