JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

OFFENCE OF FORGERY

LAW OF CRIMES

SUBMITTED TO: DR. SADIYA

SUBMITTED BY: SANDEEP CHAWDA,

2ND YEAR, REGULAR.

 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Contents
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. 3

2. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 4

3. What Constitutes Forgery? ............................................................................................... 5

4. Forgery – Law in India ...................................................................................................... 5

Section 463 Forgery ............................................................................................................... 6

Section 464. Making a false document .................................................................................. 6

Section 465. Punishment for forgery...................................................................................... 7

Scope of Sections 463,464 And 465, Indian Penal Code 1860 .............................................. 7

5. Three Forms of Making False Documents....................................................................... 8

6. Aggravated Forms of Forgery .......................................................................................... 9

Forgery of a Valuable Security or Will ................................................................................ 11

Forgery for the purpose of cheating. .................................................................................... 12

7. Forgery for Purpose of Harming Reputation ................................................................ 13

8. Using a Forged Document as Genuine ........................................................................... 13

9. Fraudulent Cancellation or Destruction, etc, of Valuable Security, Will, etc ............ 16

Falsification of Accounts ..................................................................................................... 17

10. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 21

2
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I feel myself highly exhilarated to work on this project involving “Forgery – An Overview”.
I take this opportunity to thank Dr. Sadiya who had played the role of a central character and
always given me the courage and wisdom to shape my ideas in right direction. Special thanks
to the library staff who have devoted their valuable time to give me all sorts of suggestions,
ideas and facilities regarding this topic.

Sandeep Chawda

3
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

INTRODUCTION
Ever since the time of invention of writing, the offence of forgery was also in existence. In
Roman law, it was enacted by the lex corenelia de falsis that a person who falsely writes,
seals, publicly reads, or foists in a forged will or other document or makes, cuts, moulds, a
spurious seal willfully and maliciously should be punished—if a freeman with deportation,
and if a slave, with death. Removal of inscriptions of tombs was also severely punished in
Rome.

In English Common Law, Blackstone refers to such offences, especially the forging of the
seals of State, which was treated as one form of treason. In modern English Common Law:
'forgery is the making of a false instrument with intent to deceive’. 1 However, with the
promulgation of the Forgery Act 1913, forgery became a statutorily defined offence. Section
1(10) of the Act defines forgery as: ‘making a false document in order that it may be used as
genuine’. It defines the basic concept, but offences are created by other sections which
impose penalties ranging from two years’ imprisonment to life, depending on the document
forged and the intent with which it was forged.

However, the Forgery Act, 1913 stands repealed by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act,
1981. Section 1 of the Act, which is premised on the idea of forgery reflected in s 1(1) of the
1913 Act, holds a person guilty of ‘forgery’ when he, with intent to use or induce somebody
accept a document as genuine, ‘makes a false instrument’.

This paper will look into the various aspects of the law of forgery in India, it will further
analyse scope of sections 463, 464 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Also it will touch
upon aggravated forms of Forgery, Forgery for the purpose of Cheating, Forgery for the
purpose of harming Reputation. At last it will touch upon the aspects of falsification of
accounts, fraudulent cancellation or destruction, etc of valuable security.

1
R v Riley [1896] 1 QB 321.

4
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

What Constitutes Forgery?

According to English Common Law: ‘every instrument which fraudulently purports to be that
which it is not is forgery’. It is not necessary that the whole of the document or instrument
should be a fabrication, provided that there is a falsification in any material part. In India
also, the authors of the Penal Code have adopted the above principle in laying down in s 463
of the IPC, that making a false document is the foundation of forgery, the latter being
distinguished from the former in the specific criminal intent accompanying it.

Thus, it is clear that the object of forgery is normally to cheat, to cause wrongful
distribution of property by means of a false document. But in cheating, as well as in forgery
deception is caused or intended to be caused by false representation. The main difference
between cheating and forgery is that in cheating the deception is oral, whereas in forgery it
is in writing. Forgery can thus be described as merely the means to achieve an end—the end
being deception 2 . Since the mischief caused by the offence of forgery is often
proportionately high in terms of value, the penalties provided are also often severe.

Forgery – Law in India

At the very basis of the offence of forgery is the making of a false document with the
criminal intention to cause damage to any person. The making of a false document by itself
is not punishable under the provisions of the ch XVIII of the IPC (dealing with ‘Offences
Relating to Documents’), unless the document amounts to a forgery. The chapter presents
the offence in differing forms of gravity in terms of the effect caused. Thus, when the
forgery results in forgery of a record of a Court of Justice or a public register, as is
described by s 466, IPC, then it is made subject to higher form of punishment including
imprisonment for a term up to seven years with fine.

Forgery, which is an offence under the IPC, is defined in s 463. Section 464 deals with the
making of a false document or false electronic record, while s 465 prescribes punishment
for forgery. These provisions read as under:

2
Indian Bank v Satyam Fibres(India) Pvt. ltd. (AIR 1996 SC 2592)

5
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Section 463 Forgery

Whoever makes any false documents or false 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.

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 a document,
electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed or 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, [or] executed, or affixed; or

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

otherwise, alters a document 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 or 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 practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document
or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

6
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Section 465. Punishment for 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.

Scope of Sections 463,464 And 465, Indian Penal Code 1860

The offence of forgery as defined in the Code is made up of two main provisions. Section
463 defines forgery as the making of a false document or false electronic record with any of
the intentions noted therein. Section 464 defines the making of a false document or false
electronic record sufficient to be brought it within the cover of forgery. There is one
component common to both sections, that of fraud. To constitute forgery, the accused must
have made a false document or an electronic record or part of such a document or an
electronic record. Apart from the necessity of the prosecution having to prove this, it will
also have to establish that the document or electronic record, as the case may be, was forged
to achieve any of the intentions enumerated in s 463.
The essential ingredients of ‘forgery as defined in s 463 can be enumerated as as: (i) the
making of a false document or false electronic record or part of it; (ii) such making should
be with intent to: (a) cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or (b) support
any claim or title; or (c) cause any person to part with property; or (d) enter into any express
or implied contract; or (e) commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.3

Making a false document or a false electronic record

What amounts to the making of a false document or false electronic record is explained in s
464, IPC. The person who makes a false document or false electronic record commits
forgery. It is essential that the false document or the false electronic record, when made,
must either appear on its face to be, or be in fact one, which, if true, would possess some
legal validity. In other words, the document or the electronic record must be legally capable
of effective ting the fraud intended.
The term ‘document’ is defined in s 29, IPC, to denote ‘any matter expressed or
described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks’, in a manner capable of
conveying an idea to the mind of a person who is able to understand them. In s 30, the
words ‘valuable security’ is defined as denoting ‘a document which is, or purports to be, a

3
Sushil Suri v. CBI (AIR 2011 SC 1713)

7
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished
or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has
not a certain legal right’.
The term ‘electronic record’, by virtue of s 29A of the IPC inserted in the Code by the
Information Technology Act 2000, means ‘data, record or data generated, image or sound
stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer generated
microfiche’.

Section 464 explains as to what amounts to making a false document or false electronic
record. It describes three ways in which a false document or false electronic record can be
made:

(1) By making, sealing, signing or executing a document or a part thereof; or by

making or transmitting any electronic record or a part thereof; or by affixing
any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(2) By alteration of a document or an electronic record; or
(3) By causing a person, who is innocent of the contents or nature of the alteration
done to a document or an electronic record, to sign, seal or execute it.

A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three
conditions mentioned in s 464. The first condition deals with the situation wherein the
document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that it has been
made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not
made. The second situation deals with a case wherein a person without lawful authority
alters a document after it has been made. And the third condition deals with a document,
signed by person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the
document because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind or deception practiced on him.4

Three Forms of Making False Documents

Making false documents is the soul of forgery. However, the expression making false
document’ is not to be understood in its literal sense. The manner of making the false
document is clearly stipulated in s 464, which delineates false documents being created in
three forms, and the document should fall at least in one of the three divisions. The three
forms of creating a false document are:

4
Mir Nagvi Aksari v. CBI((AIR) 2010 SC 528)

8
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

(1) Making, signing, sealing or executing a document with the intention of causing it
to be believed that such document was made by the authority of a person by
whom the maker knows that it was not made;

(2) Dishonest or fraudulent cancellation or alteration of a document without lawful

authority;

(3) Act of causing another person to execute or alter a document with the knowledge
that the maker thereof does not know the contents of the document or the nature of
the alteration.5

Necessary Ingredient for Proving Forgery Related To Part Of The

Document

The ingredients need to be proved in relation to forgery of part of documents are: (i) that the
accused made, signed, sealed or executed that part of the document; (iii) that part of the
document was not made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of the person by
whose authority it purports to have been made, signed, sealed or executed; (in) that the
accused had knowledge of (ii); (iv) that the accused had the intention of causing it to be
believed that the part of the document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made, signed,
sealed or executed, and that there was dishonesty or fraud on the part of the accused.6

Aggravated Forms of Forgery

The above discussion makes it clear that not all types of forgery are penal offences. Only
those acts of forgery, which are accompanied by the elements of deception and injury, can be
said to be covered by the definition of forgery under s 463 and 464, IPC. The various
elements and forms of forgery are elaborated in the Code in the subsequent provisions
between s 466—471, IPC, which prescribe varying terms of punishment depending on the
severity of the effects of the forgery as outlined below:

(1) For forgery of Valuable security’, will’ and so on (s 467), punishment of

5
Mathew v. George (1989) 1 Cr LJ 726 (Ker); Gulab Singh v State of Punjab (1984) 2 Crimes 869 (P&H);
Mohd Ibrahim v State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, (2010) CrLJ 2223 (SC).
6
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Volume 4, 11th Edition, Law Publishers, Allahabad, 1998, P.4455

9
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 10 years, and also fine;

(2) For forgery of record of court, public register and so on (s 466) and forgery for
purpose of cheating (s 468), punishment of up to seven years imprisonment and
fine;

(3) For forgery for purpose of harming reputation (s 469), imprisonment up to three
years and fine.

Forgery of a record of court or public register

Section 466. Forgery of record of court or of public register, etc. Whoever forges a
document 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 as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made 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 judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.7

Scope of Section 466

The section deals with forgery of five types of documents. They are: (i) court records and
pleadings; (ii) register of birth, death, baptism, marriage or register kept by a public servant
as such; (iii) certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official
capacity; or (iv) an authority to substitute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings
therein, or to confer judgment; or (v) a power of attorney.

To bring the act of the accused under the coverage of this section, the elements of fraud and
dishonesty must be present in his mind. This section does not apply to a public officer or a
person acting under his control, whose duty is to make entries in a public register or book
for making a false document. It only applies to a situation where some unauthorised person
commits forgery with a view to make it appear that the document had been duly issued by
the concerned officer. The words forged document covers not only forgery of the whole, but
also forgery of a part of the document.

7
KI Vibhute (13th ed), PSA Pillai’s Law of Crimes, 984.

10
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Forgery of a Valuable Security or Will

Section 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which
purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or 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, moveable
property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any
moveable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.8

Scope of Section 467

All the necessary elements to constitute forgery must be proved before there can be a
conviction under this section. To establish this offence, the prosecution has to necessarily
prove that there was intention as is implied in the term ‘fraudulent’ or ‘dishonestly occurring
in s 463 and 464, IPC. The main ingredients of the provision are: the forged document must:
(i) purport to be (a) a valuable security; or (b) a will; or (c) an authority to adopt a son; or (ii)
give authority to any person: (a) to make or transfer any valuable security; or (b) to receive
the principal, interest or dividends on a valuable security; or (c) to receive or deliver any
money, moveable property, or valuable security; (iii) purport to be an acquittance receipt: (a)
for acknowledging the payment of money; or (b) for the delivery of any moveable property
or valuable security.

S 467, does not require the prosecution to prove that the accused who commits forgery has
benefitted thereby for any loss occasioned to anyone else thereby.9

In view of the valuable nature of the documents forged, the section provides for stringent
punishment ranging up to life imprisonment.

8
KI Vibhute (13th ed), PSA Pillai’s Law of Crimes, 985.
9
Suresh Hingorani v. State of Haryana 2013 (1) SCALE 225.

11
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Forgery for the purpose of cheating.

Section 468. 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 which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Scope of Section 468

The form of forgery contemplated here necessarily has to involve the intention of
committing cheating. The section will not apply when the cheating is complete, and the
subsequent forgery is only intended to cover that offence. In Anicette Lobo v State,10 A-l
was a bank employee, who took a blank draft on which A-5 had forged the signatures of the
agent A-3, opened a new account in the name of a fictitious person and encashed the
cheques. In such a context, the accused were held to be rightly convicted for offences under
s 467, 468 and 120B, IPC.

In contrast, in Nand Kumar Singh v State of Bihar11the accused was acquitted because
there was no evidence that it was with his knowledge and consent that the co-accused had
forged the documents which related to obtaining of LIC policies. The only evidence was that
premium amounts were credited to his account, which by itself was not sufficient to prove
his guilt.

The section does not require that the accused should commit the offence of cheating. What
is material for the section is committing forgery with the intent to use the forged document
for the purpose of cheating. However, if the accused has used the forged document for the
purpose of cheating, he becomes liable under s 468 as well as for committing the offence of
cheating.

10
AIR 1994 SC 1613
11
AIR 1992 SC 1939

12
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Forgery for Purpose of Harming Reputation

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 469 deals with forgery of document for the purpose harming the reputation of
a person. The expression ‘harm’ used connotes hurt, injury in body, mind, reputation and
property, and damage.12

Using a Forged Document as Genuine

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 has forged such document or electronic record.
Section 471 deals with liability of a person who, knowingly or having reasons to believe
that the document is forged, fraudulently or dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine
and not of the person who has forged it. It, thus, requires the accused to use the forged
document as genuine which he knew or had reasons to believe that it is a forged one. The
provision intends to provide an alternative charge in cases where there is uncertainty about
the person who has forged it.13

MAKING COUNTERFEIT SEAL, ETC, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT FORGERY

Sections 472-476 are concerned with the offence of committing forgery by means of
making or creating counterfeit seals, plates or instruments, to use for creating the forged
documents.

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

12
Mrs Veeda Menezes v Yusuf Khan Hazi Ibrahim Khan AIR 1966 SC 1773.
13
Ismail Panju v. Emperor AIR 1926 Nag 137; AS Krishnan v State of Kerala (2004) 11 SCC 576.

13
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

this Code, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other
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 472 punishes a person who makes or counterfeits a seal, plate or any other
instrument for making an impression for committing forgery or with intent to commit
forgery of valuable security, will, and other documents specified in s 467 of the Code,
possess such a seal, plate or any other instrument. It provides for imprisonment for life
or imprisonment of either description for a term up to seven years.14

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 other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Section 473, which is almost identical with the preceding section, makes the making or
counterfeiting or possessing a seal, plate or any other instrument with intention to use it
for committing forgery of documents other than referred to, and made punishable under,
s 472 of the IPC. It prescribes an imprisonment of either description for a term up to
seven years.

Section 474. Having possession of document or electronic record described in section

466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.— Whoever has in
his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and
intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the
document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this
Code, be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description
mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with

14
KI Vibhute (13th ed), PSA Pillai’s Law of Crimes, 991.

14
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Section 474 makes a mere conscious possession of a forged document or an electronic

record, referred to in s 466 and 467, with intent to fraudulently or dishonestly use it as
genuine, punishable. Based on the gravity of criminal possession of documents referred to in
s 466 and s 467, it provides for simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven
years and imprisonment for life respectively. The term ‘possession’ postulates exclusive
control.15

Section 475. Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents

described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material.—Whoever
counterfeits upon, or in the substance of, any material, any device or mark used for the
purpose of authenticating any document described in section 467 of this Code, intending
that such device or mark shall be used for the purpose of giving the appearance of
authenticity to any document then forged or thereafter to be forged on such material, or
who, with such intent, has in his possession any material upon or in the substance of which
any such device or mark has been counterfeited, 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.

This section is supplementary to the provisions of s 472. It makes mere preparation that is
necessary for forging a document, specified in s 467 of the IPC, punishable. The punishment
prescribed under the section is imprisonment of either description for a term up to seven
years or for life.

Section 476. Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents other
than those described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material.—
Whoever counterfeits upon, or in the substance of, any material, any device or mark used for
the purpose of authenticating any document or electronic record other than the documents
described in section 467 of this Code, intending that such device or mark shall be used for
the purpose of giving the appearance of authenticity to any document then forged or
thereafter to be forged on such material, or who, with such intent, has in his possession any
material upon or in the substance of which any such device or mark has been counterfeited,

15
Krishna Kesavan v State of Kerala AIR 1957 Ker 78.

15
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 476 is almost similar to s 475. The only difference is that the document, the
counterfeit of which is made punishable under this section, is any document other than the
documents mentioned in s 467 of the Code. The punishment provided under s 476 is,
therefore | severe than that provided under s 475.

Fraudulent Cancellation or Destruction, etc, of

Valuable Security, Will, etc
Section 477. Fraudulent cancellation, destruction etc, of will, authority to adopt, or
valuable security.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to cause damage
or injury to the public or to any person, cancels, destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel,
destroy or deface, or secrets or attempts to secret any document which is or purports to be
a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in
respect of such document, 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 477 criminalises fraudulent or dishonest cancellation, destruction, or defacing of

valuable security, will, or an authority to adopt or attempts thereat or secreting or
attempting to secret them or mischief in respect thereof. Owing to the great importance of
these documents and the severe consequences of their cancellation, destruction, etc, the
section provides for imprisonment for life or simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term
up to seven years.16

'

16
KI Vibhute (13th ed), PSA Pillai’s Law of Crimes, 993.

16
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Falsification of Accounts
Section 477A. Falsification of accounts.—Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or
employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to
defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing,
valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has
been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully and with intent to defraud,
makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or
alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper,
writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation.—It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general
intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or
specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, on any
particular day on which the offence was committed.
Section 477A deals with the falsification of accounts. It speaks essentially of two offences,
namely: (i) defrauding, altering, destroying, mutilating or falsifying any book or accounts or
electronic record; and (ii) making or abeting the making of false entries in the same. These
two offences are distinct and not interdependent.17 The main ingredients of the section are:
(1) the persons covered by the provision are, a clerk, officer, or servant, or acting in such
capacity; (2) he must wilfully and with intention to defraud: (i) destroy, alter, mutilate or
falsify any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security; (a) which belongs to,
or is in possession of, his employer; (b) has been received by him for, or on behalf of, his
employer; or (ii) makes or abets the making of any false entry in or omits or alters from or in
any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account.

Thus, the offence is established where it is shown that there was falsification of accounts
with the intention to defraud by either falsifying accounts or making of false entry in any of
the valuable securities mentioned in the section. The section does not require any
deprivation of property.

The importance of proving that the act of the accused was wilful and possessed the intention
to defraud as an essential element to prove the offence under s 477A, was stated by the

17
Prafulla Chandra v Emperor AIR 1931 Cal 8.

17
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Supreme Court in Hamam Singh v Delhi Administration.18 In this case, the accused was a
goods loading clerk of the Indian Railways. He was prosecuted and convicted for
committing offences under s 477A, I PC, for falsifying certain entries in the marketing-cum-
loading register to show that a certain consignment of cloth from a cotton mills was received
on 10 January 1967, as there were restrictions on booking of goods which became effective
from the next day, i.e., 11 January 1967. It was the contention of the accused that he had no
intention to defraud, as he had made an entry about the date of receiving the goods based on
the intimation given by the time-keeper. And in any case, he had put the correct date under
his signature in the same register as 11 January 1967.

In accepting his contentions, the Supreme Court said that ‘willfully as used in s 477A, meant
intentionally or deliberately doing an act’. By the mere fact that some entries were made
willfully, it need not necessarily imply that the accused did so with the intention to defraud
within the meaning of the section.

In lnderjit Singh v State of Punjab19a case involving allegation of misappropriation of

government funds meant for disbursement of wages to labourers involving falsification of
registers, the Supreme Court held that inasmuch as the factum of non-payment of wages was
proved and so also deliberate falsification of records, no case of offence under s 477A could
be held to be established.

18
AIR 1976 SC 2140
19
AIR 1995 SC 2128

18
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Conclusion
At the very basis of the offence of forgery is the making of a false document with the
criminal intention to cause damage to any person. the object of forgery is normally to cheat,
to cause wrongful distribution of property by means of a false document. Forgery can thus be
described as merely the means to achieve an end—the end being deception. a person guilty of
‘forgery’ when he, with intent to use or induce somebody accept a document as genuine,
‘makes a false instrument’.

In cheating, as well as in forgery deception is caused or intended to be caused by false

representation. The main difference between cheating and forgery is that in cheating the
deception is oral, whereas in forgery it is in writing. Section 465 provides punishment for the
offence of forgery which may extend to two years of imprisonment or with fine or with both.
The essential ingredients of ‘forgery as defined in s 463 can be enumerated as as: -

(i) the making of a false document or false electronic record or part of it;
(ii) such making should be with intent to:
(a) cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or
(b) support any claim or title; or
(c) cause any person to part with property; or
(d) enter into any express or implied contract; or
(e) commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

The person who makes a false document or false electronic record commits forgery. It is
essential that the false document or the false electronic record, when made, must either
appear on its face to be, or be in fact one, which, if true, would possess some legal validity.
In other words, the document or the electronic record must be legally capable of
effectuating the fraud intended.

The ingredients need to be proved in relation to forgery of part of documents are:

(i) that the accused made, signed, sealed or executed that part of the document;
(ii) that part of the document was not made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the
authority of the person by whose authority it purports to have been made, signed,
sealed or executed;

(iii) that the accused had knowledge of (ii);

19
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

(iv) that the accused had the intention of causing it to be believed that the part of the
document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by
whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, and
(v) that there was dishonesty or fraud on the part of the accused.

Not all types of forgery are penal offences. Only those acts of forgery, which are
accompanied by the elements of deception and injury, can be said to be covered by the
definition of forgery under s 463 and 464, IPC. The various elements and forms of forgery
are elaborated in the Code in the subsequent provisions between s 466—471, IPC, which
prescribe varying terms of punishment depending on the severity of the effects of the
forgery.20

20
KI Vibhute (13th ed), PSA Pillai’s Law of Crimes, 998.

20
 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

BIBLIOGRAPHY
12. Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Volume 4, 11th Edition, Law Publishers,
Allahabad, 1998.

13. K.I.Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 13th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur.

14. K.D.Guar, Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

21