Forgery

Forgery

Forgery means faking or changing a document, signature, or object (like money or art) to mislead others. It’s a kind of fraud, usually done for money or to deceive someone. Forgeries can be physical (like cash or papers) or digital (like electronic documents).

Official definition of forgery

Black’s Law Dictionary defines forgery in criminal law as the falsely making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability.

Term as defined in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Chapter 18 of the BNS replaces Chapter 18 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 for the chapter 'Offences Related to Documents and Property Marks'. In the BNS, Section 335 - 344 elaborate on the offences related to documents.

Section 336 of the BNS (previously section 463 IPC) defines forgery as:

A person commits forgery when they make a false document or false electronic record, in whole or in part, with the intention of causing harm, supporting a false claim or title, making someone part with property, inducing someone to enter into a contract, or in any way enabling fraud. The basic punishment for forgery is imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both. However, if the forged document or electronic record is intended to be used for cheating, the punishment becomes more severe and may extend to seven years along with a fine. Similarly, if the forgery is carried out with the intention of damaging someone’s reputation, or with knowledge that it is likely to be used in that manner, the offender may be punished with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine.

From this, it can be seen that making a false document is an essential part of the offence of forgery. This can be better understood by examining the legal provisions related to forgery.

Legal provisions related to forgery

BNS Provisions

Section 335 of the BNS defines what exactly it means to make a false document like this:

A person makes a false document or false electronic record when they dishonestly or fraudulently create, sign, send, or mark a document or electronic record in a way that makes others believe it was done by someone who actually did not do it or did not authorise it. This also includes altering an existing document or electronic record in any important way without lawful authority, after it has already been made or signed. A false document is also made when someone tricks or takes advantage of a person, who is unable to understand what they are doing because of unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception, into signing, executing, altering, or electronically signing a document or electronic record.

Section 337 of the BNS defines forgery of a court record, public register etc. like this:

Whoever forges a document or electronic record that appears to be a court record or court proceeding, or an identity document issued by the Government such as a voter ID card or Aadhaar card, or a register of births, marriages or deaths, or any register maintained by a public servant, or any certificate or document made by a public servant in their official role, or a document giving someone authority to file or defend a lawsuit, take steps in a case, confess judgment, or act under a power of attorney, can be punished with imprisonment of up to seven years along with a fine. For this section, the term “register” also includes any list, data, or record kept in electronic form as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 338 of the BNS defines forgery of valuable security, will, etc. in these terms:

Whoever forges a document that appears to be a valuable security, a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or a document that gives someone the power to create or transfer a valuable security, or to receive its principal, interest, or dividends, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document that appears to be a receipt or acknowledgement for payment of money or for the delivery of movable property or valuable security, can be punished with life imprisonment or with imprisonment of up to ten years, and will also be liable to pay a fine.

Section 339 of the BNS elaborates on the offence of having possession of documents described in section 337 or section 338, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine in this way:

Whoever knowingly possesses a forged document or electronic record, intending to use it dishonestly or fraudulently as if it were genuine, will be punished depending on the type of document involved. If the forged document or electronic record is of the kind described in section 337, the person can be imprisoned for up to seven years and may also be fined. If it is of the kind described in section 338, the punishment can be life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to seven years, along with a fine.

Section 340 of the BNS defines a forged document or electronic record as well as the offence of using such a document as genuine:

A document or electronic record that is created, in whole or in part, by forgery is considered a forged document or forged electronic record. Anyone who knowingly or with reason to believe that a document or electronic record is forged, still uses it as if it were genuine, and does so dishonestly or fraudulently, will face the same punishment as if they had actually committed the forgery themselves.

Section 341 of the BNS defines the offence of making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable under section 338:

Anyone who makes or counterfeits a seal, plate, or any instrument used to create an impression, intending that it will be used to commit a forgery punishable under section 338, or who possesses such a counterfeit instrument with that intention, can be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to seven years, along with a fine. If the counterfeit instrument is intended for committing any other forgery under this Chapter (other than section 338), making or possessing it with that intention is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine. A person who merely possesses a counterfeit seal, plate, or impression-making instrument, knowing it is counterfeit, can be punished with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine. Anyone who dishonestly or fraudulently uses such a counterfeit seal, plate, or instrument as if it were genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that it is counterfeit, will face the same punishment as if they had made or counterfeited it themselves.

Section 342 of BNS defines the offence of counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents described in section 338, or possessing counterfeit marked material:

Whoever counterfeits any device or mark on or within any material that is normally used to authenticate documents covered under section 338, intending to use it to make a forged document appear genuine—or who possesses such material with that intention—can be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to seven years, along with a fine. If the counterfeit device or mark is meant to authenticate any other type of document or electronic record (not covered by section 338), and it is created or possessed with the intention of making a forged document appear authentic, the punishment may extend to imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine.

Section 343 of BNS defines the offence of fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security:

Whoever, acting fraudulently or dishonestly, or with the intention of causing harm to the public or any person, cancels, destroys, defaces, hides, or attempts to do any of these acts to a document that is or appears to be a will, an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief involving such a document, can be punished with life imprisonment or with imprisonment of up to seven years, and may also be fined.

Section 344 of BNS elaborates on the offence of falsification of accounts:

Whoever, being a clerk, officer, servant, or anyone working in that capacity, intentionally and with the intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates, or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security, or account that belongs to their employer, is in their employer’s possession, or has been received by them on the employer’s behalf, shall be punished. The same punishment applies if such a person, with intent to defraud, makes or helps make any false entry, or omits, alters, or helps omit or alter any important detail in such records. The punishment can be imprisonment of up to seven years, or a fine, or both.

Negotiable Instruments Act Provisions

Section 41 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 elaborates on the concept of the acceptor of bill of exchange bound to pay although the  may have known that the sign was forged:

If someone agrees to take and honour a signed money order or payment note, they cannot later avoid responsibility by saying that a previous signature on it was fake, if they already knew or had reason to suspect the signature was fake when they agreed to accept it. In other words, if you accept a payment document knowing a signature on it is forged, you are still fully responsible for it.

Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 elaborates on presentment for payment:

When a cheque is presented through its electronic image, the bank that must make the payment can ask the bank holding the physical cheque for more details if it reasonably suspects something is wrong. If the suspicion involves fraud, forgery, tampering, or destruction, it can demand to see the physical truncated cheque itself. If the bank makes the payment after checking it, it must keep the physical cheque.

Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 elaborates on the non-liability of the banker receiving payment of truncated cheque. A truncated cheque is a normal paper cheque that is stopped at the bank where it is first deposited and is not physically sent through the clearing process. Instead, the bank scans the cheque and sends an electronic image of it to the clearing house and the paying bank. It explains the limitation on liability in this way:

When a bank makes payment based on such an electronic image, the bank that holds the original paper cheque has a duty to carefully examine the cheque before truncating it. The bank must check whether the cheque appears genuine and whether there are any obvious signs of fraud, forgery, or tampering visible to a reasonably careful person. In simple terms, the bank must not blindly scan and send the cheque; it must look for anything suspicious on the face of the cheque that could have been caught with ordinary care.

Registration Act Provisions

Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 elaborates on the penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment:

Anyone who intentionally makes a false statement before an officer during any proceeding or enquiry under this Act, or knowingly submits a false copy or translation of a document, map, or plan to a registering officer, or impersonates someone else and in that false identity presents a document, makes a statement, or takes any action in a proceeding under this Act, or helps or encourages any offence punishable under this Act, can be punished with imprisonment of up to seven years, or with a fine, or with both.

Limitation Act Provisions

Article 56 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 clarifies that the limitation period to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered is three years from when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff.

Information Technology Act Provisions

Sections 65 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 together define and penalize two major forms of technological forgery — tampering with digital systems and identity-based fraud. Section 65 focuses on the integrity of computer source code, which forms the backbone of all digital records and programs. It makes it an offence to knowingly or intentionally conceal, destroy, or alter this source code, or to cause someone else to do so, when the law requires it to be preserved. Such tampering amounts to falsifying the very basis of digital evidence or documentation. The section prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine of up to two lakh rupees, or both, emphasizing that manipulating digital systems is treated as seriously as altering official or legal documents in the physical world.

Section 66C deals with identity-based digital forgery, criminalizing the fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or any other unique digital identification feature. This covers impersonation in the digital realm — for example, signing documents with someone else’s digital certificate, using stolen login credentials, or misusing biometric data to access secured systems or perform transactions. It prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine that may extend to one lakh rupees. Together, these sections ensure that both tampering with digital systems and misusing digital identities are recognized as punishable forms of technological forgery, carrying penalties designed to deter electronic manipulation and identity theft

Term as defined in case law

Ingredients of forgery in criminal law

Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr (2009, Supreme Court):

The judgment explains that for someone to be guilty under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security) or 471 (using a forged document) of the IPC, there must first be forgery, and for forgery to exist, there must be the making of a false document as defined in Section 464. Since the case involves no electronic record, the question is whether executing and registering sale deeds for property not owned by the accused amounts to making false documents. The Court analysed Section 464 and clarified that a false document can arise in three ways: (1) when a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or signs a document pretending it was made or authorized by someone else; (2) when a person unlawfully alters or changes a document after it has been made; and (3) when a person causes another to sign or alter a document through deception, or when that person lacks mental capacity or is intoxicated. In essence, a false document is made when someone pretends to be another person or act under their authority, alters an existing document without authority, or tricks someone incapable of understanding into signing—and without such a false document, there can be no forgery or related offence.

Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj (2018, Supreme Court):

Here, the Court held that under the strict interpretation of criminal law, a person cannot be charged with forgery unless they are the actual maker of the false document. “Making” a document is distinct from “causing it to be made,” and Explanation 2 to Section 464 makes it clear that the accused must themselves have created the false document to be liable. The definition of a “false document” is part of the definition of “forgery,” and both must be read together—proof of forgery or fraud must come from direct evidence or reasonable inference from facts.

Types of forgery

Forgery can be remedied via the criminal route as well as the civil route. The criminal route will involve prosecuting under the applicable Section of BNS whereas the civil route will involve proving that the document is forged during trial and seeking appropriate relief.

Civil forgery

Daljit Singh v. Inderjit Singh (2018, Delhi High Court):

In this case, the Delhi High Court held that if someone alleges a document is forged, the burden of proof lies on that person to establish it with convincing evidence. Mere allegations or untested statements are not enough. The defendants, who claimed that a sale deed was forged, failed to produce reliable proof such as expert testimony, attesting witnesses, or any internal inconsistency in the document. The Court examined the original sale deed and found no signs of forgery, noting that minor variations in ink could occur naturally. Because the deed was a registered document, it carried a presumption of genuineness under law, which the defendants did not rebut. Consequently, the Court held that the allegation of forgery was unsubstantiated and affirmed the sale deed as genuine and legally valid.

K. Maniamma v. S.V. Govindaraju (2009, Madras HC):

The Madras High Court dealt with a promissory-note dispute in which the defendant denied signing the document and alleged that it was forged. A handwriting expert testified that the disputed signature bore clear signs of forgery—showing hesitation, unnatural pen-lifts, and differences from the admitted signatures. The trial court, however, dismissed the expert’s opinion and compared the signatures on its own. The High Court held that this approach was improper: while courts may compare handwriting under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, expert evidence cannot be ignored when properly produced. The judgment reaffirmed that in civil cases involving alleged forgery, expert testimony forms an important part of the evidentiary process and must be carefully evaluated rather than summarily rejected. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that the expert’s analysis be duly weighed alongside the other evidence to determine whether the signature was genuine or forged.

Interaction between civil and criminal forgery

In civil proceedings, forgery is treated as a question of fact affecting ownership or validity of a document, and the party alleging it must prove it on a balance of probabilities. In contrast, criminal forgery requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves establishing fraudulent intent. In real life, civil and criminal proceedings may run parallel to each other. The outcome of one proceeding may affect the other proceeding.

Mukul Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, 2020):

Here, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where an agreement alleged to be forged was already examined in a civil suit. The civil appellate court had categorically found that the document was genuine and not forged. The Supreme Court held that once a competent civil court has adjudicated the question of forgery and concluded that the document is valid, the very foundation of any parallel criminal case for forgery or using a forged document disappears. Continuing criminal prosecution in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, as the issue of authenticity had already been settled in civil proceedings. The judgment thus underlines that when a civil court, upon proper evidence, finds a document to be genuine, criminal allegations of forgery based on the same document cannot be sustained.

Technological transformation and initiatives

The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and its crime-category page can be used to report and address forgery-related cybercrimes by helping victims classify and submit complaints involving impersonation and identity theft in the digital context. This involves an act of fraudulently or dishonestly making use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person. By using the portal, victims can file complaints that go beyond traditional police mechanisms, especially when the forgery involves digital tools, electronic submissions, or online platforms, ensuring quicker, technically informed action by cyber-law enforcement authorities.

Appearance of forgery in databases

Crime in India Report

The NCRB Crime in India Report 2022 is the Government of India’s most authoritative annual compilation of crime data, based on FIRs registered across all States, Union Territories, and major metropolitan cities. It categorises offences under detailed IPC and Special Law heads, tracks year-on-year trends, and offers a nationwide statistical overview of patterns in crime, enforcement, and victim demographics. Because the report follows a uniform data-collection methodology and relies on police-verified submissions, it serves as the primary reference for understanding India’s crime landscape, including specific offence categories such as forgery, fraud, cheating, counterfeiting, and other document-related crimes.

Under the specific IPC crime head “Forgery”, the NCRB reports a clear upward trend over the past three years. There were 19,992 forgery cases in 2022, rising from 17,408 cases in 2021 and 12,530 cases in 2020, indicating a steady increase in document-related criminal activity. Despite being much smaller than the broader category of fraud and cheating, forgery by itself accounted for 0.6% of all IPC crimes recorded nationwide in 2022.

Research that engages with forgery

Comparative Analysis of Legal Recourses for Document Forgery in Civil Law

In “Comparative Analysis of Legal Recourses for Document Forgery in Civil Law: Indonesia and ASEAN Countries”, the authors critically examine the civil legal remedies available in Indonesia for cases of document forgery, using the case as a focal point, and to contrast these with the corresponding legal frameworks in other ASEAN countries, including Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar.

Forgery as Distinct Crime & Its Development

In “Forgery as Distinct Crime & Its Development”, the author makes the readers understand how forgery became a separate crime and, at the same time, its inclusion in the common law. Also, the article tries to explain how flexible the crime of forgery is & its development in India.

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-22