This article is written by R Sai Gayatri from Post Graduate College of Law, Osmania University. This article talks about forgery concerning Section 467 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Table of Contents
Introduction
In the present day, it is very common to come across cases where a person gains wrongful benefit by the means of forgery. Such forgery may be of many kinds such as forgery of signatures, documents, electronic records, etc. It is a known fact that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 through its provisions, acts like armour when it comes to protecting the citizens of India from various offences. This includes the offence of forgery as well. In this article, we will be discussing in detail about two such provisions of the IPC which deal with forgery i.e., Section 467 and Section 471.
Meaning of forgery
Forgery refers to the creation, addition or alteration of any writing, record, instrument, stamp, register, deed, etc in a false manner to the prejudice of another individual’s right. It is an act to commit fraud that is fueled by the intention of deceit. In a case of forgery, the instrument in question is altered in such a manner that if it is passed off as genuine then it shall possess legal value or establish legal liability.
As per Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 forgery is committed when an individual makes any false documents or false electronic records or a part of such documents or records with an intention to cause injury or damage to the public or any other person, or to support a particular claim or title, or to cause any other person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract, with an intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
Some of the documents that are often forged are wills, deeds, patents, cheques, certificates of authentication, identification documents, medical prescriptions, contracts, etc.
Elements of forgery as per Section 463 of IPC
- The document or electronic record or the part of it should be false in fact
- Such document or electronic record or any part of it should be created dishonestly or fraudulently
- Such creation of a false document or electronic record or any part of it should be done with an intention to –
- Cause injury or danger to the public or any individual.
- Cause any individual to part with property.
- Support any claim or title.
- Enter into any express or implied contract.
- Commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
The aforementioned elements were laid down in the case of Sushil Suri v. CBI and Another (2011). It is pertinent to understand that the term ‘fraud’ in Section 463 of IPC refers to the infringement of an individual’s legal right and such intention to defraud involves an intention to deceive and cause legal injury. However, a case of forgery can only be made when an element of fraud is present in the creation of a false document or an electronic record or a part of it.
General defences to forgery
There are certain general defences to protect oneself from the allegation of forgery, they are as follows –
- Absence of intention– In each case of forgery, the ultimate factor that establishes the offence is the element of intent. Thus, if the individual who is accused of forgery had no intention to commit the said offence then they cannot be held guilty.
- Coercion– If the individual who is accused of committing forgery establishes the fact that he had to commit forgery due to coercion or any such threat leading to coercion, then such an individual cannot be held guilty.
- Lack of knowledge– In case the individual who is accused of committing forgery proves that they had no knowledge that the document or legal instrument in question is fraudulent then they cannot be held guilty for the offence of forgery.
Understanding Section 467 IPC
Section 467 is embedded in Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states that any individual who forges a document that may be valuable security or a will, or a document enabling a person to adopt a son, or which provides authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal interest or dividends, or to receive or deliver any movable property, or any document that is falsified to be a receipt acknowledging the payment of money, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Offences under this provision are non-bailable but can be both cognizable and non-cognizable based on the offence committed.
Ingredients of Section 467 IPC
The following are the essential ingredients of Section 467 of IPC, 1860 –
- Any document or legal instrument that is forged purports to be a –
- A valuable security, or
- A will, or
- An authority to adopt a son, or
- Such forged document or legal instrument gives authority to any individual –
- To make or transfer valuable security
- To receive the principal interest or dividends or valuable security.
- To receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security.
- To an acquittance or receipt –
- For the purpose of acknowledging the payment of money.
- For the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
Illustration
Let us understand the concept of Section 467 of IPC through an example. If an individual is in possession of a forged Will wherein they have manipulated certain proceeds of the Will to their benefit, then in such a situation, the law will assume that the Will was forged with a malafide intention to gain wrongful benefit. Further, such offence will be considered under the ambit of Section 467 of the IPC wherein the offender will be convicted and punished according to the said provision.
It is pertinent to note that an offence under Section 467 of the IPC is considered as an aggravated or extended form of forgery. Just by forging a document or legal instrument an individual may be held guilty under Section 467 of the IPC, irrespective of whether such individual gained any wrongful benefit from such document or legal instrument or not. This implies that the mere possession of such document or legal instrument and the intention to make use of such document or legal instrument is sufficient to convict an individual under Section 467 of the IPC.
Whether an offence under Section 467 is bailable or non-bailable?
Section 467 of IPC comes under the purview of non-bailable offences. In the case of bailable offences, the provision of bail is considered a right, however, in the case of non-bailable offences the provision of bail is considered a privilege. This is because the accused cannot apply for bail until and unless he is presented before the magistrate.
Nevertheless, the accused can apply for anticipatory bail before they are arrested if they have a reason to believe that they will be arrested soon. But even in the case of anticipatory bail, the court follows a procedure before granting it to the accused, such procedure may involve the perusal of the court in matters such as the motive of the accused, checking if there is any previous criminal record, charge sheet filed by the police, the status of the accused in the society, etc. After receiving all such information, in case the court is satisfied that the accused deserves to get bail, only then bail is granted. The provision of anticipatory bail can be found in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under Section 438.
Cognizance of Section 467 IPC
When it comes to IPC, the offences are further classified into two kinds, i.e., cognizable and non-cognizable offences. A cognizable offence is an offence wherein the police can arrest the offender without requiring a warrant and the offender must be presented before the magistrate within 24 hours. However, in the case of a non-cognizable offence, the police essentially require the approval of the court or the commission of a warrant before making an arrest.
An offence under Section 467 of IPC is non-cognizable, however, if the valuable security is related to the Central government then it is cognizable. The offences under Section 467 of the IPC are triable by a first-class Judicial Magistrate.
Punishment under Section 467 IPC
Forgery can be understood to be a grave and heinous crime just by having a glance at the punishment given for it. Any person who commits an offence under Section 467 of the IPC shall be given the punishment of imprisonment for life or ten years. The offender may also be made liable to pay a fine in addition to his imprisonment.
| OFFENCE | PUNISHMENT | COGNIZANCE | BAIL | TRIABLE BY |
| Forgery of valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. | Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine | Non-cognizable | Non-bailable | First class Judicial Magistrate |
| When the valuable security is a promissory note of the Central Government | Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine | Cognizable | Non-bailable | First class Judicial Magistrate |
Case laws dealing with Section 467 IPC
Daniel Hailey Walcott And Anr. v. State, 1968 – In this case, the appellant Daniel Hailey Walcott made unauthorized endorsements in his passport having his photograph to travel to countries where he was not allowed to go and such unauthorized endorsements were made dishonestly and fraudulently. It was held that any individual who forges a passport and further makes use of it as a genuine passport shall be held guilty under Section 467 of the IPC.
Krishan Lal v. State, 1976 – In this case, the accused received a certain amount of money from a postman by falsely representing himself as the payee. The accused signed the postal acknowledgement in the name of the original payee. The court held that the accused has committed the offence of forgery as per Section 467 of the IPC.
Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 – In this case, the appellant had forged two certificates to get admission in the Arts the Commerce College affiliated to Poona University. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the certificates forged to get admission in a college or university shall not be considered as valuable security under Section 467 of the IPC, however, such offence will be considered under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the IPC.
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State Of Uttaranchal and Others, 2007 – In this case, the respondents had committed a breach by purporting to sell a particular part of the land for which an agreement to sell was procured by misusing the Power of Attorney given to them for some other part of the land. They were also executing sale deeds without any right whatsoever. The appellants contended that the trial court was unjustified in taking cognizance of the matter wherein no prima facie case was established against the appellants. They further stated the trial court was gravely mistaken in not considering the facts of the case in toto in the required perspective. It was also stated that the trial court failed to correctly comprehend the investigation reports submitted by two different investigating officers. The court noted that the respondents in the case had committed a criminal breach by scheming to sell a particular part of the land illegally for which an agreement to sell was obtained by abusing the Power of Attorney given to the respondents for some other part of the land. In this case, one of the respondents was held guilty under Section 467 of the IPC.
Swapna Patker v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2021 – In this case, a doctor was accused of using a fake Ph.D certificate for practising in a hospital in Mumbai. However, the Bombay High Court granted interim bail to the doctor on the grounds that the Ph.D certificate does not fall within the ambit of Section 467 of the IPC.
Understanding Section 471 IPC
Section 471 of the IPC, 1860 deals with the concept of using a forged document or an electronic record as a genuine one. It states that any individual who dishonestly or fraudulently makes use of any document or electronic record as genuine which they know to be forged or have a reason to believe that such document or electronic record is forged, then such individual shall be punished in the same manner as if they have forged document or electronic record.
Ingredients of Section 471 IPC
The following are the ingredients of Section 471 of IPC, 1860 –
- The document or electronic record is a forged one, wherein such forgery is done dishonestly or fraudulently to gain pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit.
- The accused made use of the forged document or electronic record as a genuine one.
- The accused knew or had a reason to believe that such document or electronic record is a forged one.
- The accused made use of the said document or electronic record in spite of knowing it to be a forged one.
Illustration
Let us understand the concept of Section 471 of IPC through examples. James uses a forged passport in order to gain entry into the Indian territory. He will be held liable under Section 471 of IPC as he knew that the passport is a forged one and he still tried to use it as a genuine one.
A person by the name Bond forges a promissory note makes use of it knowing it to be a falsified legal instrument, here Bond will be held liable under Section 471 of IPC.
Whether an offence under Section 471 IPC is bailable or non-bailable?
As discussed earlier, the offences under IPC are classified into bailable and non-bailable offences. Any individual who commits an offence under Section 471 of the IPC shall have the right to get bail, i.e., it is a bailable offence.
Cognizance of Section 471 IPC
If any individual commits an offence under Section 471 of IPC then they will be arrested by the police without requiring a warrant and they shall be presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours by the police. Thus, it can be understood that an offence committed under Section 471 of the IPC is a cognizable offence.
Punishment under Section 471 IPC
The offence under Section 471 is cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable. It may be tried by a First Class Judicial Magistrate. If the forgery is of a promissory note of Central Government, it is cognizable.
| OFFENCE | PUNISHMENT | COGNIZANCE | BAIL | TRIABLE BY |
| Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged | Same as for Forgery of such document | Cognizable | Bailable | First class Judicial Magistrate |
| When the forged document is a promissory note of the Central Government | Same as for Forgery of such document | Cognizable | Bailable | First class Judicial Magistrate |
Case laws dealing with Section 471 IPC
M. Fazal llahi v. Mohan Lal and Ors., 1922 – In this case, the appellant, i.e., M. Fazal llahi in the High Court of Lahore applied for the sanction to the prosecution of the respondents, i.e., Mohan Lal and Others as per Section 471 of the IPC. It was observed that whenever and wherever any forged document or electronic record is used as a genuine one with a fraudulent or dishonest intent then an offence under Section 471 is committed. Such offence is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by a first class Judicial Magistrate.
Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 – In this case, certain letters were prepared by the accused on the letterhead of a minister wherein invitations were written to invite actors for a cultural show. However, those letters did not bear the signature of the minister. It was established that neither any wrongful gain nor wrongful loss was caused to anyone by the delivery of the letters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the act was not done dishonestly and so the conviction of the accused under Section 471 of the IPC was not approved.
A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2004 – In this case, the father of a student forged the marksheet of his son in order to secure admission in a medical course. However, the total marks in the forged marksheet contained more marks than that which a student could score even if he secured one hundred per cent marks. The material on record clearly contradicted the plea of innocence. The marksheet in question was purported to have been drawn up by the father after revaluation, however, it indicated the same date of seal as that of the original marksheet. Thus, the plea that the student and his father did not know the marksheet to be forged was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused were liable to be convicted under Section 471 of IPC as they did not just possess the knowledge that the marksheet was forged but also had a reason to believe that the said marksheet was forged before they used it.
Ibrahim and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2009 – In this case, the first accused who had no connection with a piece of land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds dated 2.6.2003 in favour of the second accused dishonestly and fraudulently. It was held that a person is said to have made a false document in the following circumstances –
- If he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else.
- If he has altered or tampered with the document.
- If he has practised deception to obtain a certain document or has obtained such document from an individual who is not in control of his senses.
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, 2018 – In this case, the complainant alleged that the accused with the assistance of an imposter impersonating as Mrs. Doris Victor procured a Power of Attorney in his name as if he were her agent. It was also stated that the accused, by making use of the aforementioned Power of Attorney attempted to transfer the property of the complainant with the help of a mortgage deed. After hearing the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the offence of forgery under Section 471 of IPC cannot be imposed on someone who has not committed it. The Apex Court further held that only when the components of Section 463 are satisfied an individual can be held liable for forgery.
Conclusion
The offence of forgery can be considered as a white collar crime that involves the creation of a false document or an electronic record or any other legal instrument with a malafide intent to defraud an individual. The offence of forgery is dealt with in detail under Chapter XVIII of the IPC, 1860 that enumerates the offences relating to the property and documents.
Section 463 of the IPC states that there must be an intention on part of the offender to establish a case of forgery and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed forgery. Further, Section 467 of the IPC talks about the forgery of valuable security, wills, any document that enables an individual to adopt a son, or to transfer any valuable security, or to receive or deliver money or any property whether movable or immovable, or valuable security, or any such legal instrument which appears to be receipt of money acknowledging the payment, or any receipt acknowledging the delivery of movable property or valuable security. Coming to Section 471 of IPC the offence of forgery occurs when an individual makes use of forged documents or electronic records as genuine ones by knowing or having a reason to believe that such documents or electronic records are in fact forged.
References
- https://bnblegal.com/article/forgery/
- https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/understand-meaning-of-cheating-and-forgery-under-ipc/
- https://books.google.co.in/books?id=WnnxzkV2mk0C&pg=PR87&lpg=PR87&dq=1923+crlj+383&source=bl&ots=ktu3Yk2Grv&sig=ACfU3U3V9K0wHxrNPd_T1aeAQPyje0OuNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin4Mbek9z1AhVQzzgGHTuYB9UQ6AF6BAgPEAM
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
