The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that forgery with OMR Sheets would also attract the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC as an OMR Sheet comes within the meaning of ‘Valuable Security’ as given under Section 30 IPC.
The judgement was seen in the case of PREETI GAUTAM VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3929 of 2022 ),the case was presided over by Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is that she participated in the Contract School Teacher Eligibility Exam Class-III in the year 2011, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh.
It was alleged that the petitioner colluded along with the employees, an officer of the Professional Examination Board and various other persons for purposes of getting the marks increased in the exam and the answer sheets namely in the OMR sheets as well as the other examination relating to the electronic document that were found to be forged.
An F.I.R. was registered by the special Task Force, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(1) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 120-B of the IPC, Section 65 & 66 of the IT Act, 2000 read with 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 Gha(1)(2) read with 4 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the other charges are concerned the petitioner proposes to contest them in the trial. However so far as an offence under Section 467 of the IPC is concerned, he pleads that no offence can be made out under the said section. Tampering of OMR sheet does not come under a definition of ‘Valuable Security’ as stated in Section 467 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the petition was devoid of merit. Holding that an OMR Sheet comes within the ambit of ‘Valuable Security’ as defined under Section 30 IPC, the Court concluded that the lower court had rightly framed the charge under Section 467 of IPC.
With the aforesaid observation the Court decided not to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.