Introduction:

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the mere use of a forged document as genuine does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). For criminal liability to arise under the provision, the prosecution must establish not only that the accused used a forged document as genuine but also that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the document was forged and used it fraudulently or dishonestly.

Emphasising the distinction between suspicion and legally sufficient knowledge, the High Court clarified that the expression “reason to believe” requires more than a mere possibility or apprehension that a document may be forged. There must be circumstances capable of providing a reasonable basis for concluding, through a process of probable reasoning, that the document was not genuine.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made these observations while allowing a petition filed by Ankush Sharma in Ankush Sharma v. U.T. of J&K and Another, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (JKL). The petitioner had challenged the charge sheet and criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered at Police Station Akhnoor for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC. The proceedings originated from allegations that Sharma had produced a forged Permanent Resident Certificate while participating in a recruitment drive for constables in the Jammu and Kashmir Police in 2011.

According to the prosecution, Sharma was among 173 candidates selected during a special recruitment exercise conducted for candidates belonging to Tehsil Akhnoor. During the subsequent verification process, the Permanent Resident Certificate submitted by him was allegedly discovered to be fake. This led to the registration of an FIR and an investigation into the circumstances in which the certificate had been obtained and used.

The investigation attributed the preparation of the allegedly forged certificate to Sharma’s maternal grandmother, Smt. Shanti Devi, who was said to have approached Patwari Ravi Singh and procured the document in connivance with him. A significant circumstance that emerged during the investigation was that Sharma was only 13 years old when the certificate was prepared. Both Shanti Devi and Ravi Singh had subsequently died.

The Sessions Court, after examining the material collected during the investigation, concluded that the offence under Section 471 RPC was made out against Sharma. The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that there was no material to show that he had participated in the preparation of the forged certificate or that he knew, or had reason to believe, that the document was not genuine.

The case consequently raised an important question concerning the mental element required to establish an offence under Section 471 RPC. While the prosecution material indicated that Sharma had produced the certificate before the recruitment authorities, the central issue was whether that act, in the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to establish the knowledge or reasonable belief required by the provision.

The High Court examined the statutory ingredients of Section 471 RPC and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, to explain the distinction between knowledge, reason to believe and mere suspicion. It also considered Sharma’s age at the time the certificate was prepared and the evidence concerning his upbringing by his maternal grandmother, who was herself a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir.

Ultimately, the Court held that the material on record did not establish that Sharma had reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificate he produced. Since an essential ingredient of Section 471 RPC was missing, the charge could not be sustained. The High Court accordingly set aside the order framing charges, quashed the challan and terminated the proceedings arising from it.

The judgment underscores an important principle of criminal law: the use of a forged document and the knowing use of a forged document are not necessarily the same thing. Criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because a document is subsequently discovered to be false; the prosecution must also establish the mental element expressly required by the offence.

Arguments of the Parties:

The dispute before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court concerned the legality of continuing criminal proceedings against Ankush Sharma for allegedly using a forged Permanent Resident Certificate during a police recruitment process. The petitioner’s challenge focused on the absence of material establishing his knowledge of the alleged forgery, while the respondents relied on the circumstances surrounding his permanent resident status and the production of the certificate before the selection authority.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Achal Sharma, challenged the order framing charges under Section 471 RPC and sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR registered at Police Station Akhnoor.

The principal submission was that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. Although the investigation indicated that the Permanent Resident Certificate produced during the recruitment process was forged, there was no material demonstrating that Sharma had participated in its preparation or had any knowledge that it was not genuine.

The petitioner relied on the investigation’s own findings concerning the origin of the certificate. According to the prosecution material, Sharma’s maternal grandmother, Smt. Shanti Devi, had approached Patwari Ravi Singh and allegedly obtained the certificate through their collusion. The investigation attributed the alleged wrongdoing in the preparation of the document to these individuals rather than to Sharma.

The petitioner emphasised that he was only 13 years old when the certificate was prepared. This circumstance was relevant because the document had allegedly been procured by an adult family member who was responsible for his upbringing. The fact that the certificate had been obtained by another person, without evidence of Sharma’s involvement in the process, could not automatically establish that he knew it was forged.

The petitioner’s case also rested on the circumstances of his childhood and residence. The material before the Court indicated that he had been taken in adoption by his maternal grandmother and had lived with her at Akhnoor, where she brought him up as her son. Since she was herself a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir, Sharma had no apparent reason, according to his submissions, to suspect that the certificate obtained in his favour was not genuine.

The petitioner argued that Section 471 RPC required more than proof that a person had presented a forged document to an authority. The prosecution was also required to establish that the person knew or had reason to believe that the document was forged and that it was used fraudulently or dishonestly.

In his case, the mere production of the certificate during recruitment verification did not establish the required knowledge or belief. The prosecution had not identified circumstances showing that Sharma was aware of any irregularity in its preparation, that he had participated in the alleged conspiracy or that he had knowingly attempted to deceive the selection authorities.

The petitioner therefore contended that the Sessions Court had failed to distinguish between the objective fact that a document was allegedly forged and the separate question of whether the person using it possessed the mental state required by Section 471 RPC.

According to the petitioner, criminal proceedings could not be continued merely because the certificate was found to be false during verification. In the absence of material satisfying the essential ingredients of the offence, the charge was legally unsustainable and the proceedings deserved to be quashed.

Arguments on behalf of the respondents:

The respondents, represented by Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh, opposed the petition and defended the criminal proceedings arising from the investigation into the allegedly forged Permanent Resident Certificate.

The prosecution’s case originated from the discovery of the allegedly fake certificate during verification of documents submitted by candidates selected in the 2011 special recruitment drive for constables in the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Sharma was one of 173 candidates selected for the recruitment exercise relating to Tehsil Akhnoor.

The investigation indicated that the certificate had been procured through the alleged involvement of Sharma’s maternal grandmother and Patwari Ravi Singh. Although the alleged role in obtaining the document was attributed to these individuals, the prosecution maintained that Sharma had subsequently produced the certificate before the recruitment authority.

The respondents’ position, as reflected in the material considered by the Court, was that Sharma ought to have known that he was not entitled to claim permanent resident status in Jammu and Kashmir because his father was a resident of Rajasthan. On this basis, they sought to sustain the allegation that Sharma’s use of the certificate attracted Section 471 RPC.

The prosecution’s argument placed emphasis on the discrepancy between the petitioner’s alleged family background and the permanent resident status claimed through the certificate. The respondents maintained that this circumstance was relevant to assessing whether he could reasonably have believed the document to be genuine.

The production of the certificate before the selection authority was also a significant part of the prosecution’s case. The document was relied upon during a recruitment process in which eligibility depended, among other things, on the relevant residential qualifications. Its alleged falsity therefore formed the basis for criminal proceedings involving the use of a forged document.

However, the issue before the High Court was not confined to whether the certificate was forged or whether Sharma had used it. The Court also had to determine whether the material disclosed the necessary knowledge or reasonable belief on his part.

The respondents’ contention concerning his father’s residence was examined alongside the evidence regarding Sharma’s upbringing. The record indicated that Sharma had been brought up by his maternal grandmother at Akhnoor and that she was herself a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court also considered that Sharma was only 13 years old when the certificate was prepared.

After evaluating these circumstances, the High Court rejected the contention that Sharma’s father’s residence in Rajasthan was, by itself, sufficient to establish that Sharma knew or had reason to believe that the certificate was forged.

The Court concluded that the prosecution material did not provide a sufficient basis for inferring the required mental element under Section 471 RPC. Consequently, the respondents’ position could not sustain the charge merely on the basis of the document’s alleged falsity and its subsequent use.

Court’s Judgment:

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed the petition filed by Ankush Sharma and set aside the order framing charges against him. Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 471 RPC, particularly the requirement that the accused must have known or had reason to believe that the document was forged.

The judgment turned on the distinction between proving the falsity of a document and proving the mental state of the person who uses it. The Court recognised that the alleged production of a forged certificate was an important circumstance, but it held that this fact alone could not establish criminal liability under the provision.

Essential ingredients of Section 471 RPC

Section 471 RPC deals with fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document or electronic record that the person knows or has reason to believe to be forged. The offence requires the prosecution to establish specific elements connecting the forged document with the accused’s knowledge and conduct.

The High Court explained that the prosecution must establish that the document was forged, that the accused used it as genuine, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was forged, and that the use was fraudulent or dishonest.

These requirements must be considered together. Establishing that a document was forged does not, without more, prove that every person who later used it was aware of the forgery. Similarly, proof that an accused presented the document as genuine does not automatically establish that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was false.

The mental element is particularly important because Section 471 RPC does not criminalise every instance in which a forged document is used, irrespective of the user’s awareness. The statutory language expressly requires knowledge or reason to believe that the document is forged, along with fraudulent or dishonest use.

The Court therefore examined whether the investigation had produced material from which the necessary mental state could reasonably be inferred in Sharma’s case.

The investigation had attributed the preparation of the allegedly forged certificate to his maternal grandmother and the Patwari. There was no evidence showing that Sharma had participated in creating the document or in procuring it through the alleged collusion.

Although the certificate was later presented during the recruitment process, the Court held that the fact of its use could not substitute for proof of the other statutory ingredients. The prosecution was required to establish a sufficient connection between Sharma and the alleged forgery, particularly with respect to his knowledge or reasonable belief concerning the document’s authenticity.

Distinction between “knowledge”, “reason to believe” and “suspicion”

A central feature of the judgment was the Court’s examination of the expression “reason to believe”. Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised that the phrase carries a specific legal meaning and cannot be equated with suspicion, doubt or mere awareness of a possibility.

The Court observed:

“‘Reason to believe’ is not the same thing as ‘suspicion’ or ‘doubt’ and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing.”

This distinction is fundamental to determining criminal liability where the offence depends on the accused’s state of mind.

Knowledge ordinarily refers to awareness of a fact, while reason to believe requires circumstances that provide a sufficient basis for reaching a conclusion about that fact. Suspicion, on the other hand, may arise from uncertainty, an incomplete impression or a possibility that something is wrong. It does not necessarily amount to a legally sufficient reason to believe that a document is forged.

The Court explained that a person may have doubts about a document without possessing circumstances that reasonably establish its falsity. Criminal liability under Section 471 RPC cannot be founded solely on the possibility that the accused might have questioned the document’s authenticity.

The phrase “reason to believe” requires a more substantial foundation. There must be material from which a reasonable person, using a process of probable reasoning, could infer that the document was forged. The relevant circumstances must therefore be examined to determine whether they support the conclusion required by the statutory provision.

The Court’s approach also highlights the importance of distinguishing actual knowledge from an inference of knowledge. Direct evidence showing that the accused knew the document was forged may not always be available. In appropriate cases, knowledge or reason to believe can be inferred from surrounding circumstances. However, those circumstances must provide a sufficient and rational basis for the inference rather than leave the matter at the level of speculation.

In Sharma’s case, the Court found that the available material did not establish such a basis. His use of the certificate during recruitment verification did not, by itself, demonstrate that he was aware of the alleged forgery or that the surrounding circumstances gave him a legally sufficient reason to believe the document was false.

Reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala

In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576.

The decision was relevant to the interpretation of the mental element required by criminal provisions that use expressions such as “knowledge” and “reason to believe”. The distinction drawn in that case assisted the High Court in determining whether the circumstances surrounding Sharma’s use of the certificate were sufficient to satisfy Section 471 RPC.

Applying this principle, the High Court emphasised that the requisite state of mind must be inferred from the circumstances of the individual case. It cannot be presumed merely because the document turns out to be forged.

This approach preserves the distinction between the existence of a false document and the culpability of the person who uses it. A forged document may have been prepared by one person and later used by another who was unaware of the forgery. Whether the subsequent user is criminally liable depends on the applicable statutory requirements and the evidence relating to that person’s knowledge or belief.

The Court did not treat the absence of direct evidence of Sharma’s participation in preparing the document as the only relevant factor. It also considered whether the surrounding circumstances could reasonably establish that he knew or had reason to believe that the certificate was forged.

After assessing the available material, the Court concluded that the necessary inference could not be drawn in this case.

No evidence connecting Sharma with the preparation of the forged certificate

The Court noted that the investigation did not disclose evidence showing that Sharma had participated in preparing or forging the Permanent Resident Certificate.

Instead, the prosecution material attributed the alleged procurement of the certificate to his maternal grandmother, Smt. Shanti Devi, and Patwari Ravi Singh. Both individuals had subsequently died.

The Court considered this distinction important because the petitioner was being prosecuted for the alleged use of a forged document, not on the basis of any established role in its creation.

The absence of evidence connecting Sharma to the preparation of the document did not, by itself, resolve every question concerning Section 471 RPC. The offence can be committed by a person who did not personally forge a document but knowingly or with reason to believe that it was forged uses it as genuine. Nevertheless, the prosecution still had to establish the mental element required by the provision.

The Court therefore examined the circumstances in which Sharma had obtained the certificate and the reasons, if any, he had to question its authenticity.

A finding that a document was forged cannot automatically be transferred to the person who later presents it. The law requires an independent assessment of whether that person knew or had reason to believe that the document was forged.

The investigation’s attribution of the alleged forgery to other individuals, together with the circumstances of Sharma’s upbringing, assumed particular significance in that assessment.

Importance of the petitioner’s age at the time the certificate was prepared