Forgery

FORGERY AS AN OFFENCE UNDER I.P.C.

The offence of forgery comes under offences relating to document and property. Forgery is an offence which traces its origin with invention of writing. Therefore, forging of state seal was made – an offence within the Common Law.

SECTION 463 IPC:

whoever makes any false document or false 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Illustration: If A makes a copy of an instrument with an intention to pass it as original, he is guilty of committing forgery. The words “whoever makes any false document or part of document” have been substituted by “whoever makes any false document or false electronic record” vide First Schedule to Information Technology Act, 2000.

In case of Essan Dutt v. Pranath Chaudhary, it was held the offence of forgery is committed by a person who fabricates false evidence purporting it to be a copy of another document for the purpose of same being used as evidence.

Thus whoever, dishonestly or fraudulently makes a false document in order that it may be used as genuine commits forgery. There must be presence of criminal intent in order to commit forgery. Thus a false document along with the criminal intent constitutes forgery.

Example:

A doctor issues a false medical certificate. In this case the doctor shall be guilty of fabricating the false evidence. When the issued false certificate is used by the student to procure some benefit, here the student commits the offence of forgery but the doctor cannot be held liable as it is not his immediate criminal liability, but is that of the student.

INGREDIENTS THAT CONSTITUTE FORGERY:

The document or false electronic record or part of document or part of electronic record must be false – the first and foremost step of forgery is making a false document or electronic record. Even a part of document or record can be false.

Thus all forgeries are false documents or false electronic records but all false documents or false electronic records are not forgeries.

Example:

A false medical leave document is made so that it can be used by student dishonestly. Here the student commits the offence of forgery. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently.

Secondly, there must be a malafide intention. The falsely made document should have used for a purpose with an intention to commit fraud.

Example:

The falsely medical leave document is used by the student to defraud the authorities of the college. It must have been made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person – the damage or injury must be caused by the falsely made document or the electronic record to public or any person.

In case of R.R Diwakar VS. B.G Guttalre, it was established that apart from making false documents or false electronic record, the person should intend to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

Further, in case of Kalyanmala, it was held that the intent to cause damage constitutes the gist of the offence.

It is immaterial whether the damage, injury or fraud has been actually caused or not.

WHAT IS A FORGED DOCUMENT?

SECTION 470 IPC defines

– Forged document –

A false (document or electronic record) made wholly or in part by forgery is designated, a forged document or electronic record. Thus a false document defined in Section – 464 CrPC made wholly or in part by forgery is called a forged document.

WHAT IS MAKING A FALSE DOCUMENT?

This has been defined in Section 464 of the I.P.C section 464: A person is said to make false documents or false electronic record –

Firstly – who dishonestly or fraudulently:

a. Makes, signs or seals or executes document; or
b. Makes or transmits electronic record or a part of record;
c. Affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
d. Makes any mark denoting execution of document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or a part of electronic record was made, signed or sealed or executed transmitted or affixed by authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed or sealed or executed transmitted or affixed; or Illustration: A without Z’s authority affixes Z’s seal to the document, with intention of selling it to B, and thereby obtaining from B the purchase money. A has committed forgery.

The word signs include mark, such as thumb print in case of illiterate person, and seal would include any impression made in token of its execution. The signing and sealing of a document completes the execution of the document. In case of Lakshmi Das Vs. Lakha Raman it was observed that the signature, seal or date of the document should be false.

Secondly – who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, signed or sealed or executed transmitted or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at time of such alteration or in case of Ram Narayana when date of bond was altered, this offence of forgery was held to have been committed.

Thirdly – who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign or seal or 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 drat by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of alteration.

Illustration:

A dishonestly makes B sign a document when B is in state of intoxication.

SECTION 465 IPC:

– 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. The offence is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.

SECTION 466 IPC:

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

Whoever forges a document, 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. In this Section, The Information technology Act, 2000 substituted for the words. “Whoever forges a document” the words “Whoever forges a document or an electronic record” in this section. This section deals with aggravated form of forgery.

Ingredients:

1. The accused forged document or an electronic record;
2. The document or an electronic record forged is one of these kinds of document
a. A document or an electronic record purporting to be a record of proceedings of or in court of justice; or
b. A register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such; or
c. A certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity; or
d. Authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment; or
e. A power of attorney

Illustration:

The records of the Court were got Xeroxed by the X’s counsel and were misused by X. the said act amounts to the offences of forgery of the record of the Court.

In Haradhan Mait (1887) a person who, at the request of another sent to trap him, fabricated a document purporting to be a notice under seal and signature of the Deputy Collector, he having been informed that the notice was required by such other person for the purpose of processing a pending suit, was guilty of forgery.

The offence is non-cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.

SECTION 467 IPC:

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, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of this section:

1. The forged document purports to:
a) A valuable security; or
b) A will; or
c) An authority to adopt a son, or

2. To give authority to any person:
a) To make or transfer valuable security
b) To receive the principal, interest or dividends or a valuable security.
c) To receive or deliver any money, movable properly or valuable security.
3. To an acquittance or receipt:
a) For acknowledging the payment of money.
b) For the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.

In Roghuonundan Pottrounvees it was held that even an unregistered document purports to be a valuable security, within the meaning of this section. Furthermore in Daniel’s case AIR 1968 MAD 349, it was held that a person who forges a passport and uses it as genuine is guilty under Section 467 and 47l of IPC.

SECTION 468 IPC:

Forgery for purpose of cheating

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document 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. This section is attracted when forgery is committed with the purpose of cheating. In B.L Khatri v. State of Bihar, it was observed that the intention or the purpose of the offender in committing forgery is material.
Ingredients:

1. The document or an electronic record is forged.
2. The accused forged document or an electronic record.
3. The accused forged document or an electronic record intending that the forged document would be used for purpose of cheating. The offence is non-cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.

SECTION 469 IPC:

Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document 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.

Illustration: A sends forged pseudonymous petition charging B with murder of C, A is liable under this section.

Ingredients:

1. The document or an electronic record must be forged.
2. The accused forged document or an electronic record.
3. The document or an electronic record would be to defame or harm the reputation of someone.

SECTION 471 IPC:

Using as genuine a forged document.

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

Ingredients:

1. The document or an electronic record is forged.
2. The accused used document or an electronic record as genuine.
3. The accused knew or had reason to believe that it was a forged document or an electronic record.
4. The accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly, knowing or having reason to believe that it was a forged document or an electronic record.

In M. Fazal Ilahi v. Mohan Lal it was observed that wherever a forged document or electronic record is fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine then, offence under this section is committed. The offence is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.

SECTION 472 IPC:

Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable under sector 467:

SECTION 473 IPC:

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. This section differs from section 472, as under this section forgery is not of as serious type of forgery as is punishable under Section 467, I.P.C. The making of seal may not be duplicate of genuine one. It may not be exact imitation but it must correspond to the original so as to impress upon a person of common knowledge to be true.

SECTION 474 IPC.

Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine.

Whoever has in his possession any document, knowing the same to be forged, and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code, be punished with 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 also be liable to fine. This section resembles to Section 242,243 and259.

Ingredients:

1. The document or an electronic record must be forged.
2. The accused was in possession of it.
3. The accused intended to use it as genuine.
The offence is bailable, compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First C1ass.

SECTION 475 IPC.

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 supplements the provisions of s. 472. The commencement of forgery of bank notes and other similar securities has been described under this section. In Abaji Ram Chandra, it was observed that a person may know that a device is to be used but he cannot be convicted under this section unless there is a proof of wrong intention.

SECTION 476 IPC:

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 mart shall be used for the purpose of giving the appearance of authenticity to any document or electronic record 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.

This section is similar to s. 475 but the punishment is not so severe. 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 secretes or attempts to secrete 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.

This section applies to document tampered with or destroyed is either a will or an authority to adopt or to valuable security. Owing to the importance of documents the punishment may extend to seven years.

Ingredients:

1. The document in question must be a will, authority to adopt, or valuable security.
2. The accused cancelled, destroyed or defaces, or attempted to cancel, destroy or deface the same.
3. The accused did so dishonestly or fraudulently or with intent to cause damage or injury to public or person.

SECTION 477A IPC.

Falsification of accounts

Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, 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 willfully, 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, 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, or any particular day on which the offence was committed.

This section has two offences:
a) Falsification of accounts
b) Making or abetting the making of any false entry

Ingredients:

1. The person under the purview of this section must be a clerk, an officer, servant or someone acting in such capacity.
2. The accused must willfully and with intend to defraud;
a) Destroy or alter any book, electronic record, paper, valuable security;
i. Which belongs to or is in possession of his employer, or
ii. Has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer.
b) Makes or abets the making of any false entry in or omits or alters from or in any book, electronic record, paper, valuable security or account.

In case of Harnam Singh v. Delhi Administration a goods loading clerk was convicted under this section for falsifying certain entries in register showing receipt of bale of cloth from a cotton mill on 10-01-1967 by ante-dating entry, although goods were received on 1 L-l-1967. The appellant’s contended that in making the wrong entries register, in present case did not amount to offence under this section as he did not have requisite mens rea. His duty timings were from l0 a.m to 5.00 p.m

but the gate clerk’s duty started at 9.oo p.m. i.e. one our earlier. It was
the gate keeper who admitted goods in the shed in absence of appellant.
On 1lth January the gate keeper told that 32 bales of cotton were received
on l0t” January. Believing it to be true, the appellant made entries in thc
register. He even dated the entry on 11’r’January. He did not suppress
any material fact that entries were made on l ltl’January.

Thus the mere fact that the entries ll’ere made wilfully don’t mean that he
intended to defraud. Therefore, he was acquitted from offence under this
Section.

In Daulat Rai’s case,s’ it was held that falsification of balance sheets
and account books of company falls under this section.

Thus the offence of forgery is covered from Section 463 to Section 477-
A of the Indian Penal Code.