IPC Section 465: Punishment for Forgery and BNS Section 336

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribed punishment for ordinary forgery. The corresponding general punishment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is contained in Section 336(2).

Text of IPC 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.

Here, imprisonment of either description means simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment, as permitted by law. The provision states the maximum term, not a mandatory minimum sentence.

Corresponding law: BNS Section 336

Section 336(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita defines forgery by reference to making a false document or false electronic record with a prohibited intention, such as causing damage or injury, supporting a claim or title, inducing a person to part with property, entering a contract, or committing fraud.

Section 336(2) prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both, for ordinary forgery. Section 335 explains when a person is considered to make a false document or false electronic record.

Essential ingredients of forgery

1. A false document, false electronic record, or part thereof must have been made in the sense contemplated by the statute.
2. The act must involve the required dishonest or fraudulent conduct or other statutory conditions.
3. The accused must possess the intention specified in the forgery provision, such as intending fraud, injury, or support for a false claim or title.
4. The evidence must connect the accused with the alleged fabrication or alteration and the requisite mental element.

Not every incorrect statement in a document constitutes forgery. Whether a document is legally a false document is a distinct question from whether the statements within it are untrue.

Examples

Example 1: A person fabricates another person's signature on an agreement to make it appear that the other person executed it. Subject to proof of the requisite intention, this may constitute forgery.

Example 2: A person dishonestly changes the amount on a signed cheque without authority. Such material alteration may amount to making a false document.

Example 3: A genuine document containing an inaccurate assertion does not automatically become a forged document. Its authorship, authority and manner of execution must be examined.

Admissibility and electronic records

Electronic records and electronic signatures may be relevant to forgery offences. For proceedings governed by the current evidence law, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including its provisions on electronic records, should be considered. The evidentiary requirements depend on the nature of the record and the proceeding.

IPC Section 465 case laws and citations

The following historical case-law references were included in the original webpage and are preserved for research. Some older citations appear abbreviated or contain transcription errors; verify the full citation and the judgment before relying on them in a pleading.

1. State of UP v. Ranjit Singh AIR 1999 SC 1201, 1999 Cr. LJ 1890 (SC)
2. Badan Sing (1922( 3 Lah. 373
3. Shefaith Ali (1868) 2 Beng. L.R. 12 (Cr)
4. Lyon's Case (1813) Russ & Ry 255
5. Kalyanmal AIR 1937 Nag. 45
6. Sanjiv Ratanappa v. Emperor AIR 1932 Bob. 545
7. Maheschandra Prasad (1954) 22 Pat. 292
8. Shashi Bhushan (1893( 15 All 210
9. Kotamaraju Venkatarayadu 1905 28 Mad 90
10. Muhammad Saeekhan (1898) 21 Alld. 113
11. Dr. Vimla 1963 2 Cr LJ 434
12. Dhunum Kazee (1882) 9 Cal. 53
13. Marcus (1846) 2 C & K 356
14. Nash's CAse (1852) 2 Den. Cr. C. 493
15. Hart (1836) 7 C & P 652
16. Surendra Nath Ghosh (1910) 14 CWN 1076
17. Province of Bihar v. Surendra Prasad AIR 1951 Pat. 86
18. Per Garth C.J. in Reasat Ali. (1818) 7 Cal. 352
19. Collijns (1844) 1 Cox 52
20. Sanjiv. Emperor AIR 1932 Bob. 545
21. Dharmendranath v. Rex Air 1949 All 353
22. G.S. Bansal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1577
23. Kotamraju Venkatarayadu (1950) 28 Mad 90
24. Ram Narain (1885) PR No. 14 of 1881
25. Daya Ram (1885) PR No. 16 of 1885
26. (1955( 8 Sau LR 226
27. Najeebutoolah (1861) 7 WR (Cr.) 20
28. Mead v. Young (1790) 4 TR 28
29. Queen Empress v. Pera Raju (1890) 13 Mad 27
30. In re Vadivelu AIR 1944 Mad. 77
31. Bingle's case (1821) Russ & Ry. 446
32. Kilkwood's case (1831) 1 Mood, 304
33. In Re. P. Rama Naidu AIR 1942 Mad 92
34. Juggan Lall (1880) 7 CLR 356

Important judicial principles

In Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Supreme Court discussed the distinction between executing a document containing a false claim and making a false document within the meaning of the forgery provisions. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Court addressed the requirement that the accused must be a maker of the false document for liability for forgery. These decisions concern IPC provisions; their relevance under corresponding BNS provisions should be assessed against the current statutory language and facts.

Frequently asked questions

What was the punishment under IPC Section 465?

Imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both.

Which BNS provision corresponds to IPC Section 465?

Section 336(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Is every false statement in a document forgery?

No. The statutory requirements for making a false document or electronic record, along with the necessary intention, must be established.

Does IPC Section 465 still matter after 1 July 2024?

Yes. It can remain relevant to alleged offences committed before the commencement of the BNS, subject to applicable repeal, saving and transitional provisions.

Official legal sources

• India Code - Central legislation, including IPC and BNS
• Ministry of Home Affairs - New criminal laws and notifications
• Supreme Court of India - Judgments and case information

This article provides general legal information. Classification of an offence, procedural requirements and applicable punishment depend on the facts and the law governing the date of the alleged act.