Using Fake Driving License As Genuine Violates S. 471 IPC; Undermines Road Safety & Public Trust: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that using a fake driving licence as genuine violates Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and undermines road safety and public trust.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.

A Single Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed, “Using a fake driving licence as genuine not only violation of Section 471 IPC but also undermines and compromises road safety and public trust. … This Court find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Court that A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 471 IPC. Therefore, his conviction for the offence under Section 471 IPC is maintained.”

Advocate Sunny Mathew appeared for the Revision Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, on June 1, 2010 at around 12:15 p.m. near Government High School, while the Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady intercepted the autorickshaw, for vehicle checking, the Appellant-accused, was the driver of the said autorickshaw produced a forged driving licence in his name as genuine. According to the prosecution, there were 6 other accused who aided the Appellant in forging the driving licence. During the trial, one of the accused persons died and after trial, the other five were acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC.).

Whereas, the Appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 471 of the IPC and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000/- with a default custodial sentence of one month. But he was acquitted of the offence under Section 468 of the IPC. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Being aggrieved by this, the Appellant was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The evidence on record would show that A1 used Ext.P1 forged driving licence as genuine by producing the forged driving licence before the Sub Inspector of Police at the time of vehicle checking.”

The Court added that the Appellant voluntarily submitted the fake driving licence before the Sub Inspector of Police and when the police ascertained its genuineness, it was found that it was a forged one, which had never been issued by the Regional Transport Officer.

“Accused has no plausible explanation for possessing and using the forged driving licence. By possessing and using a forged driving licence as genuine, he tried to deceive the police authorities. It stands established that A1 in a fraudulent and dishonest manner produced a forged driving licence before the police officials at the time of vehicle checking and thus tried to defraud them, by knowing fully well that it was not a genuine driving licence”, it further observed.

The Court held that if a person fraudulently or dishonestly presents a document to another person, knowing or having reason to believe such document to be a forged one and the document is ‘used as genuine’, it comes within the ambit of Section 471 IPC.

“When a person is called upon to produce a document and he produces the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a forged document, such a person cannot claim absolution. The evidence on record would show that A1/revision petitioner deliberately used the fake driving licence as genuine and produced the same before the police officials with intent to defraud and mislead the police officials. Thus, for all practical purposes it was a ‘user’ within the scope and ambit of Section 471 IPC”, it also noted.

The Court said that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, considering the fact that more than 14 years elapsed from the date of incident, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment for 3 months.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, confirmed the conviction, and modified the sentence.

Cause Title: Abhijit George v. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:3071)

Click here to read/download the Judgment