Allegation against the accused was that he furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT Teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in the certificate. Howe

The Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandran v. State, AIR 2010 SC 1922, has held that to constitute an offence of forgery document must be made with dishonest or fraudulent intention. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The Supreme Court in the case of Parminder Kaurv. State of UP, has held that mere alteration of document does not make it a forged document. Alteration must be made for some gain or for some objective. Similarly, in the case of Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2011 CrLJ 1546 (P&H), the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in certificate. However the certificate did not anywhere say that school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating teaching experience of the accused, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed. In view of the above, the accused is not guilty of any offence.