In a criminal appeal filed before the Supreme Court against a judgment dated 30-04-2025 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the appellant’s appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh was affirmed, a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria partly allowed the appeal and reduced the substantive sentence of the appellant to the period already served.
By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each head, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently. By an order dated 21.11.2025, this Court issued notice limited to the question of quantum of sentence, confining the proceedings only to the issue relating to the sentence imposed upon the appellant, and the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, was not under consideration.
On 15.09.2014, in connection with a criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, the appellant appeared to furnish surety/bail on behalf of an accused person. In support, the appellant produced a Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika (Land Rights and Loan Book) allegedly issued on 31.01.2013 for an agricultural land in Rewa. During scrutiny of the document in the course of the bail proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate noticed certain irregularities, particularly with regard to the sequence and pagination of its pages, which created suspicion regarding the genuineness of the document. Since the appellant was unable to satisfactorily explain the anomaly, a communication was addressed to Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa directing inquiry and appropriate action.
Thereafter, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC on the allegation that the appellant had produced a forged Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika and had used the same as a genuine document for securing bail. During investigation, the disputed document was verified by the revenue authorities and the case proceeded on the footing that the subject document produced before the Court was forged and that the appellant had knowingly used the same as a genuine document in judicial proceedings. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused, but convicted the present appellant and sentenced him. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence.
The appellant submitted that the occurrence was of the year 2014 and that he had faced criminal proceedings for more than a decade. It was also submitted that the appellant was not alleged to be a habitual offender and that no subsequent criminal antecedents had been brought to notice.
The Court stated that offences involving forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are serious in nature. It was said that even though the use of forged documents before a court of law cannot be viewed lightly, the principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process. The Court stated that sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix and overall circumstances of the offender. It was noted that the appellant had remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade and no material indicated he was a habitual offender. It was also said that the disputed document was detected during scrutiny itself, and that the alleged misuse did not ultimately culminate into any irreversible pecuniary or proprietary consequence. The Court stated that the present case was not one involving organized criminal activity, large-scale economic fraud, etc.
Further, the Court stated that the present case fell within the limited arena of examining whether the sentence imposed upon the appellant warranted interference. It was noted that from the custody certificate, that the appellant had undergone over two years of incarceration. Hence, the Court opined that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence was modified.
Thus, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, remained unaltered, and the appeal was partly allowed.
