Ipc (2)

Forgery – An Overview

Forgery – An Overveiw

Project submitted to

Mr. Mh. Hadiur Rahman

(faculty of Indian Penal Code)

Project Submitted by

Vinay Kumar Sahu

(Sociology Major)

Semester Five

Roll No - 169

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.

1


Table of Content

Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................03

Introduction ......................................................................................................................04

Objectives ..........................................................................................................................05

Research Methodology .....................................................................................................06

Forgery – Its Constituents .......................................................................................07

Forgery – law in India........................................................................................................07

Section 463, 463, 465 of Indian Penal Code,1860.............................................................07

Scope of Section 463, 463, 465 of Indian Penal Code,1860............................................08

False Document or False Electronic Record.....................................................................09

Aggravated forms of Forgery(s.466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477,

477(A), ..................................................................................................................................11

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................20

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................22

Acknowledgements2


I feel myself highly exhilarated to work on this project involving “Forgery – An Overview”.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Mh. Hadiur Rahman 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 I.T. staff and library staff who have devoted their valuable

time to give me all sorts of suggestions, ideas and facilities regarding this topic.

Last but not the least I thank all the members of the H.N.L.U. and all others who have helped

me in the completion of this work.

Vinay Kumar Sahu

INTRODUCTION

3


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 wilfully 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’.

OBJECTIVES

1 R v Riley [1896] 1 QB 321.

4


The objective of this project is to -

To discuss the concept and scope of forgery.

To discuss the various provisions relating to forgery provided under Indian Penal

Code,1860.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5


The researcher has followed the non doctrinal method for research design. The research is

based on both primary and secondary sources. Literature review has been done extensively in

order to make a comprehensive presentation. Books from the university’s library have been

used. Computer from the computer laboratory of the university has been used for the purpose

of secondary research and is the main source of project.

Vinay Kumar Sahu

Roll No -169

Semester-5

WHAT CONSTITUTES FORGERY?

6


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 deception2. 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:

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

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

7


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.

Section 465. Punishment for forgery.—Who ever 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

8


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 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 effectiveating 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

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:

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

9


(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:

(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.

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

10


NECESSARY INGREDIENTS FOR PROVING FORGERY RELATED TO PART OF 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.5

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

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

5 Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Volume 4, 11 th Edition, Law Publishers,

Allahabad, 1998, P.4455

11


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.

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.

Forgery of a Valuable Security or Will, etcSection 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.


12


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.

In view of the valuable nature of the documents forged, the section provides for stringent

punishment ranging up to life imprisonment.

Forgery for Purpose of Cheating

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 which may extend to seven

years, and shall also be liable to fine.


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,6 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.

6 AIR 1994 SC 1613

13


In contrast, in Nand Kumar Singh v State of Bihar7the 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.

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.

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.

7 AIR 1992 SC 1939

14


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

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.

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


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.

15


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

imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall


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.

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.—

16


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,

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


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.

'

17


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. 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

Supreme Court in Hamam Singh v Delhi Administration.8 In this case, the accused was a

8 AIR 1976 SC 2140

18


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 ‘wilfully as used in s 477A, meant

intentionally or deliberately doing an act’. By the mere fact that some entries were made

wilfully, 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 Punjab9a 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.

Conclusion

9 AIR 1995 SC 2128

19


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

effectivating 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);

20


(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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

21


Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Volume 4, 11th Edition, Law Publishers,

Allahabad, 1998.

K.I.Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 11th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa Nagpur.

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

22

Ipc (2)

Documents

Transcript of Ipc (2)