Criminal Conviction Set Aside in Fake Certificate Case as Degree Was Not Required for the Job: High Court Allows Appeal. The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has set aside a criminal conviction in a case involving an allegedly forged Bachelor of Arts (Pass) certificate, holding that the certificate was not a mandatory qualification for either the appellant’s initial appointment or his subsequent promotion at the National University. The Court observed that a finding of guilt in departmental proceedings is not sufficient, on its own, to establish criminal liability. The prosecution must independently prove the essential elements of the alleged criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali delivered the judgment on 10 September 2026, allowing Criminal Appeal No. 8058 of 2024 and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Divisional Special Judge, Dhaka, on 25 March 2024.

Background of the Case

According to the prosecution, Mohammad Obaidullah joined the National University in Gazipur as a Lower Assistant on 29 December 1999. It was alleged that he submitted a degree (pass) certificate issued in the name of another person, taking advantage of the similarity of their names, and subsequently obtained employment and promotion on that basis.

A five-member committee constituted by the National University examined the certificates and reported that the certificate attributed to Obaidullah had not been issued in his name. A subsequent hearing committee also examined the allegations.

Following an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), a criminal case was brought against the accused under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860.

On 25 March 2024, the Divisional Special Judge, Dhaka, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 20,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in default of payment. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court Division.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant

Counsel for the appellant argued that the original degree (pass) certificate alleged to be forged had not been produced before the trial court. The conviction was based on a photocopy of the certificate, raising questions about the admissibility and evidentiary value of the document under Sections 62, 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The appellant’s counsel also submitted that, under the applicable service rules of the National University, an Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) was sufficient for appointment to the post of Lower Assistant. Similarly, a degree (pass) certificate was not a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Higher Assistant under the relevant service rules.

Accordingly, counsel argued that the alleged certificate was not a relevant qualification for either the appellant’s appointment or his promotion, undermining the prosecution’s allegation that he had obtained employment-related benefits through the certificate.

Court’s Observations

Upon examining the evidence, the relevant service rules and the documents on record, the High Court found that a degree (pass) certificate was not required for appointment to the post of Lower Assistant or promotion to the post of Higher Assistant.

The Court observed that, even assuming the certificate was forged, its alleged falsity could not, by itself, establish the criminal charges in the circumstances of the case, particularly when the certificate was not a mandatory qualification for the relevant posts.

The Court also noted that the original certificate had not been produced before the trial court. This raised a significant evidentiary concern regarding the basis on which the appellant had been convicted.

Departmental Proceedings Cannot Independently Establish Criminal Liability

A key observation of the Court concerned the distinction between departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings.

The Court noted that although the appellant had been found guilty in a departmental inquiry on the same allegation, the finding could not independently establish his criminal liability. Departmental proceedings and criminal trials have different objectives and operate under different standards.

The prosecution was therefore required to establish the essential elements of the alleged criminal offences through legally admissible evidence. A departmental finding alone could not substitute for proof of criminal liability.

Dismissal from Service Also Found Unlawful

The Court further examined the appellant’s dismissal from service on 25 April 2013, which followed departmental proceedings concerning the same alleged certificate.

Referring to Section 16 of the National University Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Statute-8, the Court observed that where criminal proceedings concerning the same matter are pending, the imposition of a disciplinary penalty is subject to the requirements of the applicable service provision. The Court held that the appellant’s dismissal, in the circumstances of the case, was contrary to law.

Final Decision

Considering the facts, evidence, service rules and applicable legal principles, the High Court held that the appeal had merit.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 25 March 2024 passed by the Divisional Special Judge, Dhaka, in Special Case No. 48 of 2022.

Case Details

• Case Name: Mohammad Obaidullah v. The State and another
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 8058 of 2024
• Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
• Judge: Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali
• Date of Judgment: 10 September 2026
• Relevant Laws: Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860; Sections 62, 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872; and Section 16 of the National University Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Statute-8.
• Publication of Judgment: 18 October 2026, on the Supreme Court website.

BDLawPost / Masum