Offences of Forgery

under Indian Penal Code

KHUSHI AGGARWAL
A3211118288
BA LLB (H)
SEMESTER 3
SECTION D
 What is the meaning of forgery under the
section 463 of the Indian Penal Code ?

According to Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, "whoever makes any false
document or electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent
to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or
title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or
implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.



Ingredients :



To invoke Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients must be
established -



(1) A person makes any document or part of a document



(2) The document or false electronic record or part of the document or electronic
record must be false.



(3) His Intention is -



(a) to cause damage or injury to the public or any person; or


(b) to support any claim or title; or

(c) to cause any person to part part with his property; or

(d) to enter into any express or implied contract; or

(e) to commit any fraud or that fraud may be committed

 Sections of offence of forgery in the Indian
Penal Code

Section 464. Making a false document

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the
[electronic signature],
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by
whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or

Secondly - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation

or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof,
after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of
such alteration; or

Thirdly - Who dishonestly pr fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or
alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any
electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not
know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

Illustrations
(a) A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000 writer by Z. A, in order to
defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000, and makes the sum 1,00,000 intending
that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.
(b) A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any
sum having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by
inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
(c) Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the
legatee named by Z, and by representing to Z that he has prepared the will
according to his instructions, induces Z to sign the will. A has committed forgery.

Section 465. Punishment if forgery.

Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Classification of offence
Punishment - imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both - Non-cognizable - Bailable -
Triable by Magistrate of the first class - Non-compoundable.

Section 466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.

Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record, or
proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or
burial, or a register kept by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to
institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgement,
or a power of attorney, shall be punished to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Classification of offence
Punishment - Imprisonment for 7 years and fine - Non-cognizable - Non-bailable -
Triable by Magistrate of the first class - Non-compoundable.

Section 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.

Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable to give security or a will,
or an authority to adopt a son, pr which purports to give authority to any person to
make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or
dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable
security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance pr receipt acknowledging
the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable
property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of life or with,
imprisonment of either description for a term of which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of offence
Para I: Punishment - Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine -
Non-cognizable - Non-bailable - Triable by Magistrate of the first class - Non-
compoundable.
Para II: Punishment - Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine -
Non-cognizable - Non-bailable - Triable by Magistrate of the first class - Non-
compoundable.

Section 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged
shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term of which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Section 469. Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged
shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that
purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 470. Forged [document or electronic record].

A false [document or electronic record] made wholly or in part by forgery is
designated “a forged [document or electronic record]”.

Section 471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic
record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic
record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or
electronic record.

Section 472. Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit
forgery punishable under section 467.
Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an
impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any
forgery which would be punishable under section 467 of this Code, or, with such
intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other4 instrument, knowing the
same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 473. Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit
forgery punishable otherwise.
Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an
impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any
forgery which would be punishable under any section of this Chapter other than
section 467, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other4
instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either4 description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
 Case Laws of Forgery

Case name: Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj

Date of Judgment: May 11, 2018
In the case at hand, the complainant alleged that accused no. 1 with the aid of
an imposter who by impersonating as Mrs. Doris Victor (the owner of
impugned property) created a Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘PoA’) in his
name as if he was her agent. It was further alleged that, using the aforesaid PoA
the accused no. 1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by
executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no. 2.
After getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of the
property Mrs. Doris Victor registered FIR against accused for cheating.
The Trial Court convicted both accused and accused no. 2 was convicted for
offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for forgery).
However, the High Court in appeal acquitted the accused no. 1 and 2 holding
that no case was made out under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code or for
offence under Section 420 of IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property) being a consequential one, equally cannot be sustained.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of High Court, the appellant in this case
approached the Supreme Court. The Appellant contended that the High Court
incorrectly interpreted Section 464 of IPC which mandates that anyone who
makes a false document is guilty of forgery.

Bench’s Verdict
The Supreme Court in the case upheld the High Court’s order and made the
following observations:

• That a close scrutiny of the provisions makes it clear that, Section

463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 of IPC substantiates
the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be
said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of
forgery under Section 463. That Section 464 of IPC defines one of the
ingredients of forgery i.e. making of a false document. Further, Section
465 of Indian Penal Code provides punishment for the commission of the
offence of forgery.
• That in order to sustain a conviction under Section 465 of Indian Penal
Code, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section
463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 of IPC should also be
 satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are
satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 of Indian Penal
Code by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464 of IPC, as the
offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
• The Supreme Court in the case also quoted Collin J. in Dickins v. Gill,
(1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of
fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to make”, in itself involves
conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery
cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
• For Conviction u/Section 465 of Indian Penal Code False Document
shall be made with the intention – The Supreme Court made reference
to its judgment in the case of Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
Anr.[1] wherein it was held that there is a fundamental difference
between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property
conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by
impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or
empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner’s behalf.
• That to fall under category of `false documents’, it is not sufficient that a
document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is
a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or
by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made or executed.
• That when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which
is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming
that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such
document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the
owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464
of IPCof the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no
forgery
• That a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the
maker of the same. That making of a document is different than causing it
to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 of IPCfurther clarifies that,
for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a
false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the
same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of
forgery.
• Forgery and False Document- The definition of “false document” is a
part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together. ‘Forgery’
 and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as
a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts.
• With reference to the facts of the instant case, the Court stated that there
was no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made
any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage
deed under the guise of that ‘false document’.
In view of the aforesaid, the Apex Court inferred Section 464 of the IPC makes
it clear that only the one who makes a false document can be held liable
under the aforesaid provision. It must be borne in mind that, where there
exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation.

Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant Fakhruddin has been convicted under Sections 465, 417, 419, 471
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced in the aggregate to three
years rigours imprisonment, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. His
appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under appeal.

As many as seven persons (/including Fakhruddin) were presented for criminal

conspiracy, forgery, cheating and personation. They were alleged to have
conspired together to forge applications for permits for corrugated and plain
iron sheets in the names of non-existing persons. it was alleged against some of
them that in the prosecution of the conspiracy they had committed the several
offences above-mentioned. Fakhruddin was one such person. The Additional
Sessions Judge convicted only there and acquitted the rest. They were
Fakhruddin, one Ali Hussain and Anandilal. On appeal, the High Court
acquitted Ali Hussain and a cart-man by name Anandilal. Thus, of the seven
original accused, Fakhruddin alone has suffered conviction.

Fakhruddin like some of the other accused who have since been acquitted was
in the harder business. The modus employed in the commission of the offences
was to present applications for permits by pretending to be the applicants.
Persons desiring to obtain iron-sheets had to apply on printed forms stating their
names, addresses and the kind, size and quantity of the sheets desired. The
permits were made it triplicate copies and the third counterfoil was required to
be signed in token of receipt of the permit. The permit and one extra copy were
handed over4 to the successful applicants, who on presentation of the permit to
the Indore Iron and Steel Registered Stockholders Association, received the
items mentioned in the permits. Although the iron-sheets were not rationed, the
issuance of permits was with a view to keep a check so that only genuine users
might benefit and the passing of the sheets into the black market prevented. As
a matter of fact slackness in or absence of verification of the identity of the
applicants and their needs, made it easy for some persons in the trade to resort
to such devices to obit supplies with a view to profiteering.

The offence of conspiracy cannot survive the acquittal of the alleged co-
conspirators. Fakhruddin cannot be convicted unless there be proof that he had
conspired with person or persons other than his co-accused.

Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another.

The CBI filed a charge-she against five accused persons under Section 120B
read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the
said charge-sheet, the appellant herein was made Accused 3 and the company,
in respect of which he was the former Managing Director, M/s Neemuch
Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, was made accused 4. The other three accused are
officials of Andhra Bank.