certificate in question here cannot be termed as a valuable security in order to attract to bring the case within the ambit and purview of the offence under Section 467, IPC. He has referred to Section 30, IPC which has defined ‘valuable security’. As per Section 30, IPC, ‘valuable security’ denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document where a legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. In Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in [1980] 4 SCC 551, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a certificate forged to get admission in college cannot be termed as ‘valuable security’ within the meaning of Section 30, IPC and Section 467, IPC. The offence under Section 467, IPC is with regard to forgery of valuable security, will, etc. and the same is punishable within imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to be fine. On the afore-mentioned premises, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that save and except the offence under Section 467, IPC, none of the other offences, that is, Section 420, IPC or Section 468, IPC or Section 471, IPC, involved in the case, is punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years. In such situation, the directives laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 and para 12 in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2014] 8 SCC 273, are applicable. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case in hand, the above submissions appear to have some force. Since the instant application is an application for bail, the above aspects are not adverted to in detail. Be that as it may.
