Offences Relating to Documents and Property Marks — Forgery

Sections 335 to 350 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — re-enacting Sections 463 to 489E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — punish the family of offences that protect the integrity of documents, electronic records, and property marks. The chapter splits into two limbs. The first limb (Sections 335 to 344 BNS) covers forgery — making a false document or electronic record, using it as genuine, possessing forged instruments, and falsifying accounts. The second limb (Sections 345 to 350 BNS) covers property marks — false marks, counterfeit marks, and selling goods with counterfeit marks. The drafting strategy is consolidation: the BNS folds twenty-seven scattered IPC sections into sixteen BNS sections by collapsing punishment provisions into sub-sections of the substantive offence.

Two textual reforms stand out. Section 337 BNS adds "Court or an identity document issued by the government, including a voter identity card or Aadhaar card" to the protected categories — bringing identity-document forgery within the higher punishment of forgery of a public record. Section 341 BNS adds two new sub-sections (3) and (4) — possessing a counterfeit seal knowing it to be such, and using a counterfeit seal as if genuine — closing two evidentiary gaps that the IPC had left open. The chapter sits in the wider scheme of IPC and BNS notes on offences relating to property and trust, alongside the law of cheating under Sections 318 to 319 BNS and the law of criminal breach of trust under Sections 314 to 316 BNS.

Statutory anchor — Section 336(1) BNS (Forgery)

The offence has six alternative intents — damage to public or person, supporting a claim or title, causing parting with property, causing entry into a contract, committing fraud, or causing fraud to be committed. The mens rea is in the disjunctive: any one of the six suffices. The actus reus is making a false document or false electronic record. Section 335 BNS supplies the definition of "false document" — and that definition is the doctrinal hinge of the entire chapter.

Section 335 BNS — three pathways to a "false document"

A document is false within Section 335 BNS in three alternative ways:

1. Made claiming false authorship — the maker dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was made by some person other than the actual maker, or by the authority of some person who did not so authorise it, or that it was made at a time at which the maker knew it was not made.
2. Tampered after execution — the maker dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part after it has been made or executed, without lawful authority and without the consent of any person by whom or by whose authority it was made.
3. Obtained by deception — the maker dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute, or alter a document, knowing that such person could not by reason of unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

The Supreme Court's restatement in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) collapsed the three pathways into a memorable formula: a person is said to have made a "false document" if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else, or (ii) he altered or tampered a document, or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception or from a person not in control of his senses. Devendra v. State of UP (2009) reinforced that the making of a false document is the sine qua non of forgery — without that, the offence does not exist.

Five ingredients of forgery

1. Making a false document or electronic record within Section 335 BNS.
2. One of six intents — damage, claim, parting with property, contract, fraud, causing fraud.
3. Either dishonestly or fraudulently — Section 2 BNS supplies the definitions; "fraudulently" is broader than "dishonestly" and does not require deprivation of property.
4. Document or electronic record — Section 2(8) BNS defines document; the BNS now expressly extends to electronic records, closing the IPC gap that pre-dated the Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. The Khosla rule — the document must "tell a lie about itself"; merely incorporating a false statement does not make the document false. A.K. Khosla v. T.S. Venkatesan (1994).

The Khosla doctrine — a document must "tell a lie about itself"

The Supreme Court in A.K. Khosla v. T.S. Venkatesan (1994) drew a critical distinction between a document that contains a false statement and a document that is false. Forgery requires the latter: the document must lie about itself — about its maker, its date, its authority, or its authenticity. A document that contains a false statement of fact but is genuinely made by its purported maker is not a forged document; the maker may have committed cheating or perjury, but not forgery.

Two illustrations bring out the rule. In Shankerlal Vishwakarma v. State of MP (1991), a school inspector prepared, under his own signature, false pay bills containing claims for teachers who had not worked. He was held guilty of making a false document for purposes of cheating but not of forgery — he had neither imitated another's signature nor altered the bills. By contrast, in State of UP v. Ranjit Singh (AIR 1999), a stenographer in a High Court fabricated a forged bail order; the document purported to be issued by the court when in fact it was not, and the offence under Sections 466 and 468 IPC (now Sections 337 and 336(3) BNS) was made out.

Section 337 BNS — forgery of court records and identity documents

Section 337 BNS punishes forgery of a record of a Court, of a public register, of a register of birth, marriage, or burial kept by a public servant, of a certificate by a public servant, of any document made by a public servant in his official capacity, of an authority to institute or defend a suit, or of a power of attorney. The BNS adds three new categories: "Court or an identity document issued by the government, including a voter identity card or Aadhaar card". The IPC reference to "baptism" is dropped.

The expansion is consequential. Aadhaar-card forgery, voter-ID forgery, and forgery of any government-issued identity document is now triable under Section 337 BNS, attracting imprisonment for life or up to seven years and fine. Before the BNS, identity-document forgery had to travel under Section 465 IPC (the basic offence with a two-year ceiling) unless the document also fell within the older Section 466 categories. The BNS recalibration closes the gap.

Section 338 BNS — forgery of valuable security and will

Section 338 BNS punishes forgery of valuable security, will, authority to adopt, document for receiving money or paying money, or for delivering property — imprisonment for life or up to ten years and fine. The IPC predecessor is Section 467; no change in substance. The Supreme Court treats wills, promissory notes, conveyances, and bills of exchange as the prototype "valuable security" — see Soshi Bhushan (1893) for the principle that the property with which the document is intended to cause parting need not exist at the time the document is made.

Section 336(2) BNS — punishment for forgery

Section 336(2) BNS punishes forgery with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both — the IPC ceiling preserved unchanged. Section 336(3) BNS punishes forgery for purpose of cheating — imprisonment up to seven years and fine; the IPC predecessor is Section 468. Section 336(4) BNS punishes forgery for purpose of harming reputation — imprisonment up to three years and fine; the IPC predecessor is Section 469.

The Supreme Court in Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI stated the elements clearly: making a false document; with intent to cause damage or injury, support a claim, cause parting with property, or commit fraud; either dishonestly or fraudulently. The "support a claim or title" limb is the most overlooked: a person with a legitimate claim who counterfeits a document to support it commits forgery, because the conversion of a doubtful claim into an apparently legal one is dishonesty.

Section 340 BNS — using a forged document as genuine

Section 340(1) BNS punishes a person who 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 record. The IPC predecessor is Section 471. Section 340(2) BNS folds in the punishment provision (formerly Section 471 read with the substantive offence). The use-as-genuine offence is the practical battleground; most forgery prosecutions allege both making and using.

The user's mens rea — knowledge or reason to believe — is decisive. A person who innocently presents a forged document genuinely believing it to be authentic is not guilty under Section 340 BNS, however strongly the document later turns out to have been forged. The reverse-burden presumption under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on documentary genuineness does not relieve the prosecution of proving knowledge or reason to believe.

Section 341 BNS — counterfeit seals and the new sub-sections

Section 341(1) BNS re-enacts Section 472 IPC, punishing the making or possession of any counterfeit seal, plate or instrument with intent to commit forgery punishable under Section 338. Section 341(2) BNS re-enacts Section 473 IPC, punishing the making or possession of any counterfeit seal, plate or instrument with intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise. The substantive change is in two new sub-sections that the BNS adds.

Section 341(3) BNS — entirely new — punishes a person who possesses any seal, plate or other instrument knowing the same to be counterfeit, with imprisonment up to three years and fine. Section 341(4) BNS — also new — punishes a person who fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any seal, plate or instrument knowing it to be counterfeit, with the same punishment as if he had made or counterfeited the seal. The two new sub-sections close gaps that the IPC had left open: pure possession of a known counterfeit seal, and use of a known counterfeit seal without making it. The new sub-sections reflect modern fraud patterns where the maker, the possessor, and the user are typically different persons.

Sections 343 and 344 BNS — destruction of will, falsification of accounts

Section 343 BNS punishes fraudulent cancellation, destruction, defacing, or concealment of a will, authority to adopt, or valuable security. Section 344 BNS punishes falsification of accounts — willfully altering, defacing, or destroying any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account belonging to or in the possession of an employer, or making a false entry in any book of account. The IPC predecessors are Sections 477 and 477A; no change in substance. The Section 344 BNS offence is the foundation of every white-collar prosecution involving a clerk, accountant, or auditor; it operates alongside cheating under Section 318 BNS and criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant under Section 316(4) BNS.

Sections 345 to 350 BNS — property marks

The second limb of the chapter punishes false and counterfeit property marks. Section 345(1) BNS defines "property mark" — a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person. Section 345(2) BNS punishes using a false property mark; Section 345(3) BNS punishes the same with imprisonment up to one year and fine. Section 346 BNS punishes tampering with a property mark with intent to cause injury — the IPC predecessor is Section 489. Section 347(1) BNS punishes counterfeiting a property mark; Section 347(2) BNS punishes counterfeiting a mark used by a public servant. Section 348 BNS punishes the making or possession of any instrument for counterfeiting a property mark. Section 349 BNS punishes selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark.

The property-marks regime overlaps materially with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — most counterfeit-mark prosecutions today travel under the special statute. The BNS provisions retain force as the lex generalis for marks that are not registered trade marks but are nevertheless used to identify the owner of movable goods.

Forgery of currency and banknotes — the lex specialis

The IPC's Sections 489A to 489E — counterfeiting currency notes and bank notes — are not folded into the BNS forgery chapter. They sit in the chapter on offences relating to coin and government stamps, with Sections 178 to 188 BNS as the BNS equivalents. The split is policy-driven: currency forgery is treated as an offence against the State, not against an individual victim, and attracts much higher punishment.

Cognate offences and overlap

Forgery overlaps with several other Code offences. Where the forgery is in support of a cheating scheme, Section 318 BNS attaches concurrently — the prosecution typically charges both. Where the forgery is in connection with a criminal conspiracy, Sections 61 and 62 BNS attach. Where the forgery is in connection with the disposition of property to defraud creditors, Sections 320 to 323 BNS attach. Where the forgery is part of organised-crime activity, Section 111 BNS may attach.

Forgery is sharply distinct from giving false evidence under Section 227 BNS: false evidence is a verbal or written statement under oath; forgery is the making of a false document. They overlap only where the false document is filed in a judicial proceeding, in which case both offences may be charged on the same transaction subject to Section 71 BNS.

Procedural matters — cognisability, bail, trial

Under the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 336 BNS forgery is non-cognisable, bailable, and triable by a Magistrate. Section 337 BNS (court records, identity documents) is cognisable, non-bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. Section 338 BNS (valuable security, will) is cognisable, non-bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. Section 340 BNS (use as genuine) takes the cognisability and bail status of the underlying forgery offence. Sections 341 to 344 BNS are cognisable in most categories. Sections 345 to 350 BNS (property marks) are non-cognisable and bailable in most categories, triable by any Magistrate.

Sentencing patterns and the BNS recalibration

The BNS preserves IPC ceilings throughout the forgery chapter — the policy choice is to leave punishment unchanged and to expand scope. The principal expansion is the addition of identity documents to Section 337 BNS and the new sub-sections on counterfeit seals in Section 341. Community service as a sentencing option is, in principle, available for the basic offence under Section 336(2) BNS. Trial courts apply the proportionality principle from the law of punishment under Sections 4 to 13 BNS when choosing between fine, imprisonment, or both.

Evidentiary requirements — proving forgery

Three concrete facts must be proved: (i) the document or electronic record was made or altered; (ii) the maker had one of the six intents; (iii) the making or alteration was either dishonest or fraudulent. Handwriting expertise under the BSA, comparative analysis with admitted writings, and circumstantial evidence of motive are routine. The Calcutta High Court in Raj Shekhar Agrawal v. State of WB (2016) held that a false document is made when a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made by some other person — the test is the maker's mental state at the moment of execution.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harvir Singh v. State of MP (2016) gave a practical illustration of the negative test: a Sub-Divisional Officer issued a caste certificate that was later cancelled by a scrutiny committee. The complaint of forgery failed because neither the SDO's signature nor seal was forged; the certificate was issued by the SDO himself. A document issued by its purported maker, even if substantively wrong, is not a false document for purposes of forgery.

Civil-criminal interface and quashing jurisprudence

Forgery prosecutions frequently arise in disputes that have a parallel civil dimension — partition disputes where one heir alleges that a will is forged; property disputes where one claimant alleges that a sale-deed is fabricated; commercial disputes where one party alleges that a guarantee or invoice has been altered. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the criminal prosecution and the civil suit are separate streams; conviction or acquittal in one does not bar the other; the criminal court applies the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, the civil court applies the preponderance-of-probabilities standard. The Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) settled the procedural rule for forgery committed in respect of documents produced in a court — the limited bar in Section 195 CrPC (now Section 215 BNSS) applies only when the forgery is committed during the proceeding, not before.

Where the High Court is asked to quash a forgery prosecution at the threshold under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), the test is whether the complaint, taken at face value, discloses any of the three pathways to a false document under Section 335 BNS plus one of the six intents under Section 336(1) BNS. If both elements are present on the face of the complaint, the court will not quash; if either is absent, quashing is appropriate. The principle aligns with the wider quashing jurisprudence developed in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and reaffirmed in numerous post-Bhajan-Lal rulings.

MCQ angle — what state-judiciary papers test

Examiners test forgery in three recurring fact-patterns. First, the Khosla "tell-a-lie-about-itself" trap: a fact-pattern where a document contains a false statement but is genuinely made by its purported maker — the candidate must spot that this is not forgery. Second, the dishonestly-versus-fraudulently distinction: a fact-pattern where the accused had no intent to deprive but did intend to deceive — the candidate must spot that "fraudulently" reaches this case. Third, the new BNS additions: a fact-pattern involving Aadhaar-card or voter-ID forgery, requiring the candidate to identify Section 337 BNS as the operative provision rather than the basic Section 336. Cross-doctrinal questions about the boundary between forgery and cheating, between forgery and giving false evidence, and between the property-marks regime and the Trade Marks Act, also feature.