Teacher Accused Of Using Forged Certificates Remains Acquitted As Orissa HC Refuses State Leave To Appeal

The respondent, an Assistant Teacher appointed in 1979, was accused of obtaining public employment using forged High School and C.T. certificates. He was charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 468, 471 and 477-A IPC. The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not adequately proved the alleged forgery or use of forged documents.

The trial court noted, among other deficiencies, that the Investigating Officer had died, the appointing authority was not examined, and the service and pay records were not produced. The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC.

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court considering an appeal against acquittal must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and should not interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

In Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, the Supreme Court stated that interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on misreading or omission of material evidence, is clearly unreasonable, or where guilt is the only conclusion reasonably available on the record.

In Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, the Court held that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and imposes a higher threshold for appellate reversal.

The challenged charges were under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 468, 471 and 477-A IPC.

The High Court considered the State’s submission that the prosecution evidence, including testimony concerning the respondent’s school records and certificates, supported the charges, and that the service and pay records were unnecessary because the appointment and salary were undisputed.

It nevertheless concluded that the trial court’s assessment was neither perverse nor wholly unreasonable. Given the evidentiary deficiencies identified at trial, the acquittal represented a possible view of the record; the State had not demonstrated the compelling grounds required to displace it. The passage of more than fifteen years since the acquittal further informed the court’s refusal to unsettle it.

It dismissed the State’s application in CRLLP No. 36 of 2012.