The Kerala High Court has ruled that a conviction under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for forgery can be upheld even when there is no proof of pecuniary (monetary) loss, if it causes non-pecuniary injury such as damage to reputation, academic integrity, or institutional credibility. In a case involving the forgery of university certificates, the court emphasized that financial loss is not essential to constitute forgery; the harm may instead be intangible yet grave.
The case centered on a man who was convicted for forging university certificates. The trial court found him guilty under Section 465 IPC, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. He challenged the judgment before the High Court, arguing that he had not gained financially nor caused any financial loss to others — essentially, claiming that without economic injury, there should be no offence.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan rejected this argument. He underlined that the offence of forgery under Section 463 (defining forgery) requires proving “intent to cause damage or injury,” but the statute does not mandate that such injury must be pecuniary. The court examined Sections 24 and 25 of the IPC, which define “dishonestly” and “fraudulently.” While “dishonestly” often involves wrongful gain or loss (typically pecuniary), “fraudulently” can refer to non-pecuniary injury—in harm to mind, body, reputation, or other indirect injury. The court noted that the term “such other” in the definition functions as a catch-all category, covering non-economic harms like damage to public trust, institutional reputation, or academic sanctity.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that “fraudulently” may include injury to intangible interests, and that the law envisages non-pecuniary injury as valid harm. In this particular case, forging university certificates undermines the credibility of educational institutions, erodes trust in their academic integrity, and can harm the interests of genuine students. Such damage satisfies the “injury” requirement under the forgery offence even if no money changed hands.
Another key issue raised by the petitioner was the use of his handwriting specimen by the investigating agency, which he claimed violated the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The court rejected this contention, noting that there is no legal prohibition on obtaining handwriting samples during investigation. It referred to recent higher-court precedent affirming that specimen handwriting collected lawfully may be used as evidence.
While the court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence. The original term of two years’ imprisonment was modified to one year’s simple imprisonment, reflecting a calibrated response by the court: even though the act was serious, the lack of pecuniary loss warranted some mitigation in punishment.
In sum, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that under Section 465 IPC, forgery does not require a financial victim—the law protects non-pecuniary interests like reputation, institutional trust, and credibility. This interpretation broadens the scope of forgery offences to include intangible harms, aligning the statute with real-world scenarios where the deceit affects non-material values.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.