Understanding Forgery And Use Of A Forged Document

Introduction 

“Commercial disputes being given a criminal colour” is a routine issue faced by criminal courts across the country, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also quashed several criminal complaints pertaining to commercial/civil claims for that reason. It is important to note that, in such criminal complaints, the usual allegations involve offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and the use of forged documents. 

Cheating and criminal breach of trust have been defined time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and it is now clear that any act of deception causing a person to part with his or her property is called cheating, while any act committed in breach of an entrustment for deriving a private benefit is called criminal breach of trust. What remains to be defined more clearly is the offence of forgery and the use of forged documents, which carry grave penal consequences and are among the most prevalent and pernicious forms of white-collar crime. 

Even otherwise, an offence of forgery, if proved, strikes at the very foundation of the trust reposed in documentary transactions, whether they are commercial contracts, property transactions, financial instruments, or academic records. The penal law punishing such offences seeks to protect the integrity of documentary transactions and ensure the orderly functioning of society. Under the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), the offences of forgery and use of forged documents were historically governed by Sections 463 to 471 and have now been substantially re-enacted and consolidated under Sections 335, 336, 338, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). This article attempts to provide a simplified understanding of these provisions and their interpretation by courts of law in India. 

Legislative Framework 

Sections 463 to 471 of the IPC dealt with forgery and the related offences involving the use of forged documents. These provisions have now been consolidated and rearranged under the BNS: Section 335 of the BNS corresponds to Section 464 of the IPC and provides for what constitutes a false document; Section 336 corresponds to Section 463 of the IPC and now encompasses the definition of forgery, the general punishment, forgery for the purpose of cheating (previously Section 468 of the IPC), and forgery for the purpose of harming a person’s reputation (previously Section 469 of the IPC); Section 338 of the BNS corresponds to Section 467 of the IPC on forgery of valuable securities and wills; and Section 340 of the BNS consolidates the definition of a forged document (previously Section 470 of the IPC) and the offence of using a forged document as genuine (previously Section 471 of the IPC). The punishments prescribed for these offences remain substantially unchanged under the BNS, and the meaning of forgery has also been extended to include electronic records and digital signatures. 

Essential Ingredients of the Offence of Forgery 

The commission of forgery requires proof of several constituent elements, which have been elucidated by the Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641. The first essential element is that the accused person must have made a false document. Section 464 of the IPC (now Section 335 of the BNS) describes “making a false document” as being possible through three distinct modes: first, dishonestly or fraudulently making or executing a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by another person or under that person’s authority; secondly, altering a document in any material part without lawful authority; and thirdly, causing a person to sign, seal, or execute a document where that person cannot, by reason of unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception, know its contents. Simply stated, a false document is made if: (i) it is made or executed while claiming to be someone else or to be authorised by someone else; (ii) any document is altered or tampered with; or (iii) the document is obtained by practising deception or from a person not in control of his or her senses. 

Section 463 of the IPC (now Section 336 of the BNS) defines forgery as the making of any false document or false electronic record, or part thereof, with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, to support any claim or title, to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Simply stated, the false document must have been made with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Thus, the questions for determination before a court of law in relation to the commission of forgery are whether the document is false, whether it was made by the accused, and whether it was made with an intent to defraud. 

The actus reus of forgery thus comprises the physical act of making, signing, sealing, or executing a false document, or altering an existing document in a material part, and the mens rea required to be established is that the document must have been made “dishonestly” or “fraudulently”. It should also be noted that “dishonestly” is defined under Section 24 of the IPC (Section 2(16) of the BNS) as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, whereas “fraudulently” is defined under Section 25 of the IPC (Section 2(17) of the BNS) as doing a thing with intent to defraud. 

The Supreme Court has also observed1 that deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word “dishonestly”, whereas it is an important ingredient of the word “fraudulently”. Therefore, the expression “intent to defraud” means that the alleged act was done with an intention to deceive and thereby to cause injury, which in such cases need not necessarily amount to deprivation of property. 

Use of a Forged Document as a Distinct Offence 

The use of a forged document as genuine has been made a separate and independent offence from the act of forgery itself under Section 471 of the IPC (now Section 340(2) of the BNS), whereby it has been stated that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any forged document or electronic record, with knowledge that the document is forged, is to be punished in the same manner as if he or she had forged the document. 

The Supreme Court, in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala (2004) 11 SCC 576, explained the essential ingredients of Section 471 of the IPC, namely, the fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document as genuine, and the knowledge or reasonable belief of the accused person using the document that the document is forged. 

The said provision has been legislated to widen the ambit of penal provisions to include persons other than the forger himself. However, it should be noted that the forger himself is not excluded from an offence under Section 471. Thus, for the operation of Section 471, it is not necessary that the person charged must have forged the document himself, or that the person responsible for the forgery must first be convicted, as long as the document used is proved to be forged. 

There is thus a crucial distinction between forgery and the use of a forged document, since the act that constitutes forgery is different from the act of using a forged document. It should also be noted that a person who is unaware that a document is forged but uses it may not be held guilty under Section 471 of the IPC, as the essential ingredient of knowledge or reason to believe is a question of fact, to be adjudicated on the basis of the materials on record. 

Judicial Interpretation 

As stated above, offences of forgery are routinely alleged, and there have been several pronouncements limiting the applicability of offences of forgery and use of forged documents, which may be summarised as follows: 

In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641, a case involving large-scale financial fraud through the fabrication of letters and banker's receipts on the letterhead of UCO Bank, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the accused persons under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, holding that each instance of forgery, however small, postulates a false document either in whole or in part. The defence of “market practice” raised by the accused persons was therefore rejected. 

In the seminal decision of Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 12 SCC 696, the Supreme Court took a strict view of the commission of the offence of forgery and held that executing a sale deed in respect of property not owned by the vendor is not the execution of a false document as defined in Section 464 of the IPC. It drew a crucial distinction between a person executing a document claiming that the property conveyed is his, and a person executing a document by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised by the owner (as mentioned in Section 464 of the IPC, now Section 335 of the BNS), and held that the two cannot automatically be treated as one and the same. The charges of forgery were therefore quashed. It was thus established that a document that merely contains a false statement does not constitute a forged document unless the other requisite ingredients of the offence are fulfilled. 

In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, 2018 (7) SCC 581, the Supreme Court also held that, for an offence under Section 464 of the IPC to be constituted, it is imperative that the alleged false document be made and that the accused person be the maker of the alleged false document. Otherwise, the accused person cannot be held liable for the offence of forgery. 

On the use of a forged document, in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala (2004) 11 SCC 576, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the appellants under Section 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as they had used a forged mark sheet to secure admission to a medical college. It was held that the appellants had sufficient knowledge that the document used was forged and nevertheless proceeded to use the same. It was also held that the acquittal of a co-accused on conspiracy charges did not affect the offence under Section 471. 

Recently, in Vandana v. State of Maharashtra (2025) INSC 1098, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of an appellant under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, inter alia holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the authorship of the alleged forgery and that, since the alleged documents had passed through multiple institutional hands, it could not be concluded that the appellant had authored the tampering or had contemporaneous knowledge of it. The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute for the standard of legal proof. 

In another instance, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tara Chand v. CBI, Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 2022, decided on 29.07.2025, upheld a conviction for forgery involving public officials and impersonation of a fictitious person to obtain a bank loan. It was held that, under Explanation II to Section 464 of the IPC, the making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, amounts to forgery. It was thus affirmed that the making of a forged application in the name of a fictitious person, along with forged identity documents, fell squarely within the purview of the offence of forgery. 

Available Defences 

The most prominent defence available to a person charged with forgery or the use of a forged document is the absence of mens rea, as forgery requires the document to be made “dishonestly” or “fraudulently”. The fact that the accused lacked the requisite intent or knowledge is a complete defence, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Vandana v. State of Maharashtra (supra). 

Lack of knowledge or reason to believe that the document is forged is a specific defence to the offence under Section 471 of the IPC (Section 340(2) of the BNS), which was again affirmed by the Supreme Court in A.S. Krishnan (supra), where it was held that a person can be said to have “reason to believe” only if he has sufficient cause to believe a particular thing, but not otherwise. The proof of knowledge of forgery is on a slightly higher plane than “reason to believe”, as a person can be supposed to know a fact only if it is proved that the fact was within his direct knowledge. 

The failure of the prosecution to prove authorship of the forged document or to produce the actual forged document can also provide a viable defence. Further, the absence of expert evidence, such as forensic or handwriting analysis, to corroborate an allegation of forgery may also weigh heavily against any charge of forgery, particularly where the charge is based on authorship. 

Enhanced Punishment 

Sentencing for an offence of forgery is based on the seriousness of the offence, i.e., its purported impact on society. Simple forgery under Section 465 of the IPC attracted imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both, whereas forgery of a record of a court or public register is punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years and fine under Section 466 of the IPC (Section 337 of the BNS). Similarly, forgery of a valuable security or will under Section 467 of the IPC (Section 338 of the BNS) carries the most severe penalty, namely, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for up to ten years and fine, and forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 of the IPC (Section 336(3) of the BNS) is punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years and fine. Additionally, the use of a forged document as genuine under Section 471 of the IPC (Section 340(2) of the BNS) carries the same punishment as the underlying forgery. 

In practice as well, courts have taken a calibrated approach in imposing sentences, considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of each case. In Tara Chand v. CBI (supra), a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment was upheld, emphasising that the offence was an economic crime deliberately committed with prior preparation. In A.S. Krishnan (supra), the Supreme Court refused to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, holding that the offences involved using forged mark sheets to obtain admission to a medical college, which deserved deterrent punishment in the larger interests of society. Similarly, in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, even though the Supreme Court reduced the sentences on account of certain mitigating factors, it reaffirmed that white-collar economic offences should normally be dealt with sternly. 

Conclusion 

As seen above, the jurisprudence on forgery and the use of forged documents reflects a careful balance of two concerns, first, the need to punish conduct that undermines the integrity of documentary transactions, and second, the need to prevent ordinary commercial or civil disputes from being given an unwarranted criminal colour. Thus, to establish an offence of forgery, the prosecution must not only prove that a document contains a false statement, but that the false document or electronic record was made, altered, or procured in one of the legally recognised modes, and that the same was made with dishonest or fraudulent intent and clear proof of authorship. Similarly, the offence of using a forged document as genuine can be established distinct from the offence of forgery, but it also depends on proof of knowledge or a reason to believe, on part of the accused, that the document used was a forged document. 

The BNS also preserves the core structure of these offences while also including electronic records and digital signatures, considering the significance of digital transactions in today’s day and age. At the same time, precedents discussed above clearly show that Courts will scrutinise allegations of forgery with care, especially where proof of authorship, knowledge, expert corroboration, or the actual forged document is weak. Similarly, it is imperative that investigating authorities and prosecution agencies/ practitioners must therefore approach such allegations with caution, as even though genuine acts of fabrication, impersonation, tampering, and knowing use still warrant strict penal consequences, particularly in cases of economic crime, but the criminal processes should not be set in motion merely to intensify pressure in commercial disputes absent a prima facie establishment of essential ingredients. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.