✦ Supreme Court of India · 10 Sep 2025

Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025B V NAGARATHNA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI11 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.2 Further, admittedly, NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for recognition/renewal of affiliation of educational institutions which are imparting education from the buildings having height below 15 metres – Thus, NOC from the Fire Department was not necessary for grant of such recognition/renewal of affiliation as admittedly, the height of the appellant’s building was below 15 metres – Therefore, the representation of the appellant that he possessed a valid NOC cannot be said to have induced the Education Department to grant recognition or renew the affiliation. [Paras 10, 16] * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 59

1.3 To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation – In the absence of such vital link between the alleged false representation and the issuance of recognition/renewal of affiliation, the essential ingredient of offence is not satisfied. [Para 16]

1.4 Moreover, there is nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract s.465 IPC – In fact, the original fabricated document was not even recovered. [Para 18]

1.5 Similarly, offences u/s.468 and s.471 are also not attracted, as the requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself was not demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC. [Para 20]

1.6 Essential ingredients of cheating or forgery not disclosed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Proceedings u/s.420 quashed. [Para 21] Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients, enumerated. [Para 12] Words and Phrases – ‘dishonestly’; ‘fraudulently’; ‘wrongful loss’; ‘wrongful gain’ – Definition – Penal Code, 1860. [Para 13] Case Law Cited

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 23, 24, 415, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 10 Sep 2025. The bench was B V NAGARATHNA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 3951 of 2025). ← Search more judgments