This article is written by Pujari Dharani, a B.A.LL.B. student at Pendekanti Law College, affiliated with Osmania University, Hyderabad. The article elaborately explains Section 464 and the crimes under it with various illustrations and case laws. The author also analysed its definition, elements, nature of the offence, and punishment for its commission in detail. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction

There are situations where a person intends to deceive someone by showing a document that is fake in reality but ensures that the document is as genuine as possible to benefit from it wrongfully. These activities will cause losses for one person and profits for the others.

These scenarios are not something very new; rather, they have been occurring since ancient times. Kautilya, in his book named ‘Arthashastra’ enumerated punishments and methods to deal with such cases. However, at present, these crimes have become more prevalent and, indeed, much easier than earlier, due to technological development all around the world. 

The importance attached to a document is increasing with the feasibility of making such false documents. We know how a piece of paper or a document has become so important in our modern society. Documents like a caste certificate will benefit a person in various ways because of social welfare schemes. Similarly, a sale deed determines the actual owner of an immovable property. Every enterprise, whether micro or large-scale, runs on written or electronic documents such as contracts, cheques, bonds, etc. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the significance of documents is increasing gradually, thus, fabricating such an important document will result in huge losses, which may, sometimes, be in the crores when it comes to calculating their monetary value.

Despite amendments to laws and increases in penalties and punishments, criminals continue defrauding or deceiving someone to obtain wrongful gains by making false documents or electronic records that are detrimental to the interests of the general public. 

Therefore, to prevent such incidents in Indian society, Section 464 was included in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This provision exclusively and elaborately describes the offence of ‘making a false document’, which is an essential component in the commission of the offence called forgery. This article aims to shed light on the nuances surrounding this Section.

Relevant definitions

To know what crime Section 464 of the IPC defines and its punishment, it is essential to know some legal concepts and definitions of a few terms, before moving forward to Section 464. 

Document

The word ‘document’ is defined clearly under Section 29 of the IPC. Section 29 of the IPC sets forth a clear definition of the term ‘document’. Given that Section 464 of the IPC pertains to the creation of ‘false documents’, it is imperative to refer to the definition of ‘document’. According to Section 29, a ‘document’ encompasses any substance that contains information, with the requirement that the person creating or executing it intends to use it as evidence either presently or in the future. The information contained in the document must be expressed or explained through letters, figures, marks, or a combination thereof. 

It is noteworthy that certain circumstances do not preclude a substance from being deemed a ‘document’. For instance, the information may be written or engraved solely through the use of figures or on a material other than paper, such as wood or a tree. Thus, the aforementioned factors are irrelevant in ascertaining whether a substance qualifies as a ‘document’. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that a document need not necessarily be in paper form but may also be on any material on which information can be engraved or imprinted. 

This definition of ‘document’ is also mirrored in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 3(16) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Illustrations

The Section also provided a few illustrations for a better understanding of the word ‘document’, which are as follows:

• A draft of the contract which contains various terms agreed upon by parties and intended to use as evidence in future
• A cheque issued by a banker,
• A power-of-attorney provided by a principal,
• A substance in writing which contains any directions or instructions.

Besides this, let us also look at the following examples of ‘documents’ that were laid down through judicial pronouncements.

• An assessment order is considered a document. This was held in Ishwarlal Girdharlal Parekh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1969).
• An agreement was drafted on paper with the intention that five persons would be parties to the agreement. But, later, it was signed only by two persons, not all persons. Still, it was regarded as a ‘document’ by the court in the case of G.S. Ramaswami Ayyar v. The King-Emperor (1917).
• In the case of Emperor v. Krishtappa Khandappa (1925), the Bombay High Court held that trees could also be a ‘document’, if letters, figures or marks are imprinted on them and have the intention to use such documents as evidence.
• Even currency notes fall under the definition of ‘document’.

Electronic record

The meaning of this word was dealt with under Section 29A of the IPC which was inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000. There was a need to include this Section because of the increase in the use of electronic records in crime commissions due to the rampant advancements in the areas of technology, especially electronics and communications. Moreover, the increase in cybercrimes is yet another reason for the insertion of this word. Therefore, Section 91 of the IT Act, 2000, read with the Second Schedule, amended a few provisions in the IPC that are related to the offence of ‘forgery’ to include the word ‘electronic record’ beside the word ‘document’.

Besides this, it is imperative for us to know what the word ‘electronic record’ conveys because of its inclusion in Section 464 of the IPC. Section 29A of the IPC did not define this word, however, it directs us to refer to Section 2(1) of the IT Act, 2000, for the definition of the term ‘electronic record’. 

The provision of Section 2(1)(t) of the IT Act, 2000, which defines the word  ‘electronic record’ states that an electronic record is not just a record but can also be ‘data’ or data generated. Sometimes, an image or sound stored, received, or sent, will also be referred to as an ‘electronic record’. 

The electronic record may be of any of the above forms, however, it must satisfy an additional essential requirement, namely, that it must be either in the form of an electronic form, microfilm, or computer-generated microfiche. If this requirement is also satisfied, then such a thing will be an electronic record in the eyes of the law.

To learn more about the IT Act, 2000, click here.

Forgery

Without knowing the definition of forgery, we can not move forward with Section 464 of the IPC, especially, when Section 464 is an essential component of the offence of forgery.

The offence called ‘forgery’ is defined under Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, and the laws relating to it were further discussed in the provisions of Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, and 474.

The definition of forgery in the IPC is not as clear and straightforward as it is in English common law. In common law, any fraudulent act of making or altering the content or information contained in a document, including an electronic record, deed, or any other negotiable instrument, etc., that is detrimental to the rights of another individual is called forgery, whereas, in the IPC, the definition provided is very wide and elaborate.

Basic elements of forgery

When we read the definition of forgery provided in Section 463 of the IPC, we will find many elements. Now, let us look into those basic elements of forgery that must be included in the alleged act of those accused of such an offence. 

• The offender makes a false document or electronic record. That making may include falsifying even a small part of the document.
• While making a false document, the accused should have either of the following intentions, namely, 
  • Intention to cause damage or injury to 
    • The public as a whole, or 
    • Any person;
  • Intention to defend or prove any claim or title of the valuable property; or 
  • Intention to deprive any person of the possession and control over property; or 
  • Intention to make any person enter into a contract, either expressly or impliedly; or 
  • Intention to commit fraud. It may be either planning for the future or the said act of fraud has already taken place in the past.

The above-stated elements should be fulfilled, to construe an act as a forgery.

For instance, if a falsified or fake document that is not genuine, is being used by a person to gain something in terms of money, then such an act will not only be an offence of ‘cheating’ under Section 415 of the IPC but also an offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC. The offence of forgery can also be committed through the use of computers, modern printers, scanners, or any other electronic device. 

Examples

Some examples of forgery are as under:

• Printing counterfeit currency notes,
• Making fake certificates,
• Falsifying stamp papers, and
• Making a false document.

Significance of ‘intention’ for constituting forgery

From the above basic elements, it was quite apparent that damage or injury, either to the public or any person, must have been caused intentionally. That is, the accused must have done the alleged act with ‘intention’. This was also reiterated by the  Karnataka High Court in R.R. Diwakar and Ors. v. V.B. Guttal (1973). Such fraudulent acts amount to forgery, only if intention is present on the part of the wrongdoer. Therefore, we can conclude that, in deciding whether an act or conduct amounts to cruelty, the court will consider the mental element of the accused. Conversely, if the intention is lacking, then such an act done by the accused is not a forgery, as per the wording of the Section.

For instance, in the case of Emperor v. Sanjiv Ratnappa (1932), a police officer changed his diary to show that some people were not under his surveillance. Here, a point was noted that the police officer did not commit forgery because of the absence of the element of intention while doing such an act as defined under Section 25 of the IPC and no loss or injury is caused either to any person or the public. Thus, intention was considered to be an important element to constitute an act of forgery. We can also tell that intention is the gist of this offence. Besides this, it is immaterial whether the objective or motive of the accused is accomplished or not. For example, a person with an object to cause injury to a person intentionally makes a false document. Here, while ascertaining whether the act is a forgery, it is immaterial whether his object has been accomplished or not.

Apart from the presence of intention, the act complained of must be done either dishonestly or fraudulently to constitute the crime of forgery. If the act lacks both components, then such an act may be a mere wrongful act, but not the crime of forgery.

The burden of proving intention in case of forgery

It is obvious that proving the intention of the accused in court is as important as the presence of the element of intention in a crime of forgery. Because, unless proven in a court of law, we can not tell that the accused has the intention to do such an act. Therefore, merely making a false document would not amount to the offence of forgery unless the intention to cause injury to an individual by way of defrauding or deceiving is proved in the court proceedings, as ruled in the case of T.N. Rugmani and Anr. v. C. Achutha Menon and Ors. (1990). Thus, the burden of proof to prove the intention of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.

Various provisions under the IPC on the offence of forgery

The provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to the offence of ‘forgery’ are not only discussed in sections 463, 464, and 465, as discussed above, but also in sections 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, and 474. These sections discuss various scenarios of the offence of forgery to cover all possible actions that may amount to forgery. To know the same, see the table below.

Provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860	Offence discussed under the stated sections
Section 463	Forgery
Section 464	Making a false document or electronic record
Section 465	Punishment for forgery
Section 466	Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.
Section 467	Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
Section 468	Forgery for the purpose of cheating
Section 469	Forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation
Section 470	Forged (document or electronic record)
Section 471	Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record)
Section 472	Making or possessing a counterfeit seal, etc with intent to commit forgery, punishable under Section 467
Section 473	Making or possessing a counterfeit seal, etc with intent to commit forgery, punishable otherwise
Section 474	Having possession of a document described in Section 466 or 467 knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine

To learn more about forgery, click here.

Crime defined under Section 464 IPC – making a false document

As previously discussed, ‘making a false document’ is one of the basic elements of forgery. Because of its importance, that element was elaborately discussed under Section 464 of the IPC so that any ambiguity was removed. This particular Section is mentioned under Chapter XVIII which deals with offences relating to documents and property marks. 

Here, it is important to note that both Section 463 and Section 464 deal with the offence of ‘forgery’. Section 463 sets forth that making a false document with the intention of defrauding or deceiving someone to obtain a wrongful gain due to such a dishonest or fraudulent act is known as a forgery. While Section 464 explains when a person is said to have committed forgery by ‘making a false document’.

We know that making a false document or electronic record is considered a forgery in the eyes of the law and will, thus, be liable under both Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC and, subsequently, be punished under Section 468 of the IPC.

Essentials of making a false document under Section 464 IPC

The definition explained under Section 464 of the IPC can be learned by explicating its essentials. So, the essentials of making a false document as described under Section 464 of the IPC are discussed below. 

Making a document

Before everything, the accused should have done the act of ‘making’ a document, as alleged by the plaintiff. 

Here, we should not look at the word ‘making’ in its literal sense. Indeed, the meaning of the expression ‘making’ has been widened due to judicial interference. Such as, not just writing or printing a document is ‘making’ as stated in the Section. Instead, signing, sealing, or otherwise executing it in a note or deed also means ‘making a document’. In clear terms, the word ‘makes’ refers to the words ‘signs’, ‘seals’, ‘affixes’, ‘execute’, or ‘makes any mark or change that denotes the execution’, etc. Therefore, the accused should have either signed, sealed, or executed a document. If the accused resorts to either of the mentioned modes, the court will consider that he has ‘made’ a false document.

For instance, A affixes the seal or signature of another person to a document, knowing that he is not empowered to do such an act, but still wrongfully gains something out of such dishonest and fraudulent acts. Here, A committed forgery by making a false document.

Furthermore, such a document can also be an electronic record, as specified by Section 91 of the IT Act, 2000. In the case of making an electronic record, the accused has made or transmitted any electronic record or part of it, including affixing any electronic or digital signature. The definition of ‘electronic signature’ is defined under Section 4(E)(ta) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

Apart from ‘making’ such documents by signing and sealing, among other things, sometimes, the mere inclusion of any marks that convey the meaning that the document was executed or the electronic record is authentic is enough to construe the act as ‘making’ a document.

Such a document should be false

The other major consideration is that the alleged document should be false or contain content that is found to be false or that is not genuine. There is no requirement that the full content should be false, rather, even if a part of a document is falsified by the accused by following either of the stated modes, i.e., by signing, sealing, executing, etc., it is deemed to be a ‘false document’. Here, ‘content’ is not just information or matter contained in the document, but it also refers to the signature, seal, stamp, etc. 

Furthermore, even if the person making the document is not an authorised person, such a document will still be regarded as a ‘false document’. For example, a person could imprint a signature on a document by using a stamp without the consent of the owner of that stamp. Here, the stamp used and the document in which it is imprinted are accurate, but the person is not genuine; that is, he is not a competent or authorised person to do such an act. Hence, even though the document and signature are proper in its face, such a signature is said to be falsified, and such a document is termed a false document in the legal sense.

Such making of a document must have been done dishonestly or fraudulently

The wrongful act of making a false document shall be committed by the accused dishonestly or fraudulently. That is, the presence of elements of either dishonesty or fraud is necessary. The meaning of the words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ is discussed as follows:

Dishonestly

When you look at Section 464 of the IPC, you can find the word ‘dishonestly’ many times. Not just in this crime, but also in many crimes under the IPC, the crime must be committed ‘dishonestly’. Few among them are cheating, breach of trust, theft, forgery, etc. So, let us understand what exactly ‘dishonestly’ means according to the law.

The word ‘dishonestly’ is elucidated in Section 24 of the IPC. It connotes that if a person intentionally did some act for wrongfully gaining something, i.e., acquiring something to which he is not legally entitled, then such an act is said to be done ‘dishonestly’. Similarly, if a person does an act with the intention to cause wrongful loss to another person, i.e., depriving him of property over which he is the legal owner, it is said he has committed an act ‘dishonestly’. In both scenarios, the act done by a person with the intention to cause a wrongful gain to one person and, on the other hand, even intentional acts that result in a wrongful loss to another person are treated as ‘acts done dishonestly’. In addition, to prove an act to be dishonest, the presence of an ingredient of ‘deceit’ is not necessary. Furthermore, it is directed that Section 24 of the IPC should always be read with Section 23 of the IPC, which defines the words ‘wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’.

Let us understand this word more clearly through a situation. A person takes a pet dog from a house to sell it on the market for a lump sum amount. Here, the person who is committing such an act without the permission of its owner, knows the fact that such an act could cause wrongful loss to the owner and intends to gain something out of it. Thus, in this case, the person did the act of taking the dog away ‘dishonestly’.

Moreover, it is not necessary that both wrongful loss and wrongful gain be caused simultaneously in a given particular case. Either of them is enough to establish that an alleged act has been done ‘dishonestly’. Because there may be a few situations wherein there may be the existence of only either of the elements, not both. For instance, there is a wrongful gain for the deceiver, but no wrongful loss for the person deceived. But still, it may be deemed to be an act done dishonestly, although the second requirement is not satisfied. This was also laid down in the case, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh (1999), by the Supreme Court.

Contrarily, it is also contended that a mere incorrect belief and persistence in a wrong or a mere irrational opinion cannot be termed an offence tainted with dishonest intent, as ruled in the case of N. Vaghul and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1986).

Fraudulently

Even the word ‘fraudulently’ is mostly used in Section 464 of the IPC, along with the word ‘dishonestly’. So, let’s see how the IPC interprets it. 

The word ‘fraudulently’ is explained in Section 25 of the IPC. Once again, Section 25 of the IPC should always be read with Section 23 of the IPC, which defines the words ‘wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’. Here, the mental element, especially intention, of the person who committed an act should be taken into account to determine whether such an act was done ‘fraudulently’ or not. Thus, we can tell that the intention of the accused is a significant element in a fraudulent act, unlike in the case of a dishonest act.

Section 25 states that any act done by a person with the ‘intent to defraud’ is considered an act that has been done fraudulently. However, the meaning of the words ‘fraud’ and ‘defraud’ is not given anywhere in the IPC. Nevertheless, these words can be understood through literary meaning as well as judicial interpretation.

Fraud

Firstly, we should understand the word ‘fraud’. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a pre-planned action to secure something that is otherwise not anticipated. On the other hand, it was also observed that merely having the intention to deceive someone or doing an act fraudulently is not a crime which is punishable under the IPC, rather, the accused, with an intention to deceive, should have committed such an act, which was declared to be a crime under the penal code. A few examples are cheating, concealment of property, possession or delivery of counterfeit coins, forgery, etc., which are crimes in which an act must be done ‘fraudulently’.

Merely alleging or proving that an individual acted fraudulently does not mean that he has committed an offence punishable under the IPC or any other statute. If a fraudulent act is specified to be an ‘offence’ under the IPC or any other law for the time being in force, then such an act is said to be done fraudulently and will be punished under the Code, as decided in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009).

Defraud

Secondly, we need to understand the word ‘defraud’ because, in the definition of the word ‘fraudulently’ itself, we can see the expression ‘intention to defraud’. The word ‘defraud’ has two components. Those are:

• Existence of the element of deceit. 
• Caused injury to the person deceived. Injury can also be a monetary loss.

That is, to prove that a person defrauded another person, one person should have done some act, that had the element of deceit while committing it on another person and, consequently, caused injury or loss to another person. Here, deceit is the most important element in the acts done ‘fraudulently’, which is not the same in the case of the word ‘dishonestly’. With this, we conclude that both elements of the defraud which was mentioned earlier must be present in the commission of the disrupted act. 

Here, it is noteworthy to say that there is a difference between the words ‘deceive’ and ‘defraud’, although they are interchangeable in the literal sense. The case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) reiterated the same by differentiating between the phrases ‘intent to deceive’ and ‘intent to defraud’. In this case, an expert was summoned to be present before the court as a defence witness and was asked to submit his credentials before the court. Later, it becomes apparent that the documents that were produced by the expert were fake. Here, we know that he acted as per the orders of the court and not voluntarily, and, hence, he has no intention to cause any person to act to his disadvantage. Therefore, it was held by the Apex Court that the expert did not act with an ‘intent to defraud’ and was convicted under Sections 193 and 196 of the IPC, but not under Sections 465 and 471 of the Code. Therefore, the intention of the accused is of paramount importance to ascertain whether an act was done fraudulently or not.

Making a false document should have been done intentionally

If either of the above acts was performed by the accused with the ‘intention’ of making someone believe that the signified document was made, signed, sealed, or executed by the authorities concerned, even though the accused has full knowledge that the stated act was not done by the authorities concerned but by himself or herself, the accused is said to have committed the offence of ‘making a false document’ under Section 464 of the IPC. 

In the case of an electronic record or electronic signature, the accused should have the intention of making it look like it was either transmitted or affixed, although no such thing is done by the appropriate authorities. Here, intention is a very important element in proving the offence of making a false document by the accused.

Other acts that amount to ‘making a false document’

With the above discussion, we understood what crime is discussed under Section 464 of the IPC and its essentials. Now, let us move on to discuss two situations that will also be regarded as a commission of ‘making false documents’, which are discussed below in detail.

Alteration of material facts amounts to ‘making a false document’

If the accused made any changes to the material or important part of the document, that was already made or executed either by himself or someone else, he will still be convicted of the charge of ‘making a false document’. Here, the act must have been done without lawful authority, i.e., the accused is not legally empowered to make such an alteration to the executed document and must have been altered through cancellation or any other method. In other words, the accused has committed the act of dishonestly or fraudulently cancelling or altering a material part of a document without lawful authority, after the document is made or executed by a person, either living or deceased. Due to the technological developments in India, digital appliances are widely used for making false documents, and, hence, the rule applies to electronic records as well. That is, if the accused alters any important area of an electronic record, he will be charged and convicted under Section 464 of the IPC.

In the case of Sharvan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), an advocate’s clerk forged the signature of another advocate on a surety bond and, also, altered certain endorsements for identification and attestation. The Supreme Court of India held that the acts of the clerk amounted to an offence of forgery.

Here, it is pertinent to note that mere alliteration in a document does not amount to the offence of ‘making a false document’ as held in the case of Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2009). In this case, the accused merely added “1” to the date mentioned in the document. The Supreme Court held that an act done by the accused is not considered as ‘making a false document’ because the accused neither gained anything from such an act nor affected the limitation period. 

The main difference between material alteration and mere alteration is the effect and consequence of an act done by the accused. If the alteration is detrimental to the interests and will of the plaintiff, then such an alteration is a material alteration, which amounts to the offence of ‘making a false document’. Whereas, if such an alteration is not contrary to the interests of anyone, then it is just a mere alteration and does not attract any charges. Thus, to attract the charges of forgery, the accused has committed such dishonest and fraudulent acts of alteration to gain something detrimental to others and with such an objective and intention to deceive or defraud someone.

Inducing someone by coercion or deception amounts to ‘making a false document’

The other situation is when the accused induces another person to sign or execute a document through illegal means like coercion, threatening, or deception, and that other person executes that document. Here, the accused will be liable for the commission of forgery, even though he did not sign or execute the document. In this case, that document was executed without the free consent of the person who is executing it and due to the elements like coercion, deception, etc., employed by the accused. Hence, such a document is deemed to be a false document.

Even Section 464 dealt with this aspect. Let’s study it in detail. The Section provides that the following dishonest or fraudulent acts by the accused will also come under the category of ‘making a false document’ and be convicted under Section 464 of the IPC.

• The act of coercing or threatening an intoxicated or unsound individual to sign, seal, execute or alter the document or electronic record, or affix in case of digital signature. And, the said individual does the said act due to the reasons of intoxication or unsoundness.
• The act of deceiving any person to induce him to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record, or affix in case of electronic signature.

Additionally, the Section requires the additional condition to be proved, in the case of the above situations, that the stated person, who does the above activities due to reasons of intoxication, unsoundness, or deception, does not have knowledge of the content of the document or an electronic record, or the nature of the alteration. 

Thus, a person who has not signed, sealed, or executed the document himself will still be punished under the offence of forgery, and his acts of inducing someone by incorporating methods like coercion, threatening, or deception would be regarded as ‘making a false document’, even if he did not ‘make’ it in a literal sense.

Signing one’s own name amounts to forgery

Surprisingly, a person signing his own name can also, sometimes, be called a convict of forgery. This is described under the explanation clause of Section 464. This rule was explained through situations illustrated in the Section itself. Those are given below:

• We know there are various cases in which two persons will have identical names. Sometimes, the surname will also match. In those situations also, if one person signs with the intention of deceiving the other to believe it was signed by some other person, then such a signature is not genuine and he shall be liable under forgery. For instance, let us imagine A and B have the same name. With the intention of making someone believe that B has signed a bill of exchange, A signs in his own name. Here, the signature made by A is true, but A’s intentions are wrongful. In such scenarios where the sign or even a text may be true, but because the person is some other person than the intended person, such act of signing one’s name is said to be the commission of the offence of forgery.
• We know that a person is said to commit the crime of forgery if that person signed using another person’s name. But, a person is also said to have committed forgery if he drew a bill of exchange in pursuit of the person who committed forgery. For instance, A signs in the name of C without his knowledge on a paper which will be drawn as a bill of exchange by B upon C. Here, it is apparent that A committed the crime of forgery. Additionally, B is also guilty of forgery, if he draws the bill following A’s intentions even after knowing the fact that A forged C’s sign on the paper. In this case, B did not forge his sign. But, still, he will be convicted under Section 464.
• A person who has the same name as another person places an order and takes the benefit which has to be paid by the latter person due to the bill of exchange made by the former person. Here, it is clear that A has endorsed it in his own name. But still, he is guilty of forgery because he has the intention to deceive someone to make him believe that it was endorsed by the latter person.
• Let us imagine a situation where a person, A, lost his land due to the court’s decree. After the execution of this decree, B purchased the estate. Later, after the sale of the property in question to B, A with an intention to defraud B entered into a lease agreement with C at a nominal consideration for a long period, even without any legal authority to do so. Alongside, he also dated the lease agreement six months before the sale of the property in dispute. Here, although the agreement is executed by A in his own name, still he committed forgery because he intended to deceive B that the said agreement happened before the sale of the property.
• In anticipation of becoming insolvent, a person enters into a contract which transfers his remaining property or properties, either immovable or movable or both. This transfer of property will benefit him because once he was declared insolvent by the court, any person, especially his creditor, is not allowed to harass him or file a case against him for repayment of loan or debt. However, taking advantage of this relief which was made to protect the insolvent by transferring all his assets to someone else so that he will be declared insolvent by the court and default on all debts he has is not permitted by the court. If it is done, then the courts will look into the matter. And, if such an incident was proved, then those transactions are declared void and will be given to his creditors. For example, a businessman, M, entered into a contract with N for his benefit with the intention to defraud his creditor to whom he has to pay the debts. Furthermore, to make his argument strong in the court proceedings, he also wrote a promissory note in which it states that M is legally bound to pay a sum to N and antedates it to induce the court to believe that the note was made in the past. Here, it is said M committed forgery.

Signing in the name of a non-existent and deceased person amounts to forgery

Under the explanation clause, there is the second scenario which also amounts to forgery i.e., if a person signing or executing a document in the name of:

• A non-existent or fictitious person with an intention to deceive someone by making someone believe that such execution is done by a real person, then he has committed forgery.
• A deceased person by intending to defraud someone so that he believes that the document was executed by the deceased person during his lifetime, then he is guilty of forgery.

Illustrations

Section 464 discussed many examples for better understanding and to clear up any ambiguity if it existed. Those situations that amount to the offence of ‘making a false document’ are as follows:

• X possessed the ‘letter of credit’, which was written by his bank, that was guaranteed to receive a payment of Rs. 10,000 from Z. Later, X, intending to defraud Z, added one more figure ‘0’ after Rs. 10,000 in that letter of credit. This, consequently, resulted in Rs. 1,00,000 because of the addition of ‘0’ by X. Here, X committed forgery through ‘material alteration’ because he altered the material fact of the letter of credit intending to defraud Z.
• A used and affixed the stamp of B without the permission of B in a document that states that B has transferred his property to A. A did such an act intending to sell that property to another person once he acquired its possession so that A could gain the purchasing amount of that property illegally. In this case, A is said to have committed the offence of forgery by fraudulently affixing another person’s stamp. With this, it is once again clear that ‘making’ a false document or ‘signing’ with no authority are not the only acts constituting the offence of forgery, ‘affixing’ a stamp is also sufficient for the commission of forgery.
• P collects a cheque from a bank that was signed by Q. That cheque is payable to the bearer, i.e., a person who possesses any negotiable instrument and is entitled to receive the payment through that instrument. The cheque, which is a negotiable instrument, that was received by P is blank. That means the area in which the amount has to be written is empty. So, P, who is the bearer of that cheque, knowing the fact that the cheque is payable to the bearer, committed a fraudulent act by writing an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 in that cheque to receive the payment from Q. Due to his wrongful act with deceitful intention, A is guilty of forgery.
• M signs and gives a blank cheque to his agent, N. Alongside, M also authorises N to fill up the cheque by entering an amount with the condition that the amount entered should not be more than Rs. 1,00,000. However, contrary to the instructions made by the principal, the agent dishonestly made an entry of Rs. 1,20,000 in the cheque. In situations like these, agents are said to have committed the act of forgery.
• S drew a bill of exchange in the name of T without his authority to do such an act. Here, S is a drawer and T is a drawee. Usually, the drawee is responsible to pay the amount mentioned in that bill of exchange. However, in case of any emergent situation, there is a provision in which the drawer has the option of discounting the said bill from the bank in place of the drawee. Misusing this provision, in the present case, S discounted it in place of T as a genuine bill with the intention to deceive the bank, making it believe that it had T’s security and use it on its maturity. Because of such ulterior intentions and fraudulent acts, S will be convicted for the commission of forgery.
• E made a will, during his lifetime, which specified that his remaining properties, either movable or immovable, will be transferred to A, B, C and D in equal proportion after his death. But, B fraudulently made alterations to that will by scratching A’s name in the document. Because the material alteration was made with the intention to defraud A, the act of B amounts to forgery.
• Y signed a government promissory note which contains the words “pay to Y or his order”. Hence, such a promissory note is payable to Y or his order by the act of endorsement by Y. Later, Z dishonestly removes the stated words by erasing or any other means because of which the promissory note became a blank endorsement from being a special endorsement. Here, the dishonest act of Z was a forgery.
• G sold his immovable property to H for a reasonable and lawful consideration. Thus, the transfer of said property was completed. Nevertheless, G fraudulently made and signed another document which articulates that the transfer of property in dispute was already made by G to another person, J, even though no such thing has occurred. G also antedates the document to incorporate a belief on H that the property transfer to J was made eight months before it was transferred to him. In the present case, G is guilty of forgery.
• F asks G to write a will on his behalf by putting whatever F has spoken or dictated down on a document. F instructed to write a legatee which was not followed by G and he intentionally and dishonestly wrote another legatee. Later, G misrepresented stating that he had prepared a will by following every instruction said to him which was not done to him and made F believe in his misrepresentation. This act of G amounts to the offence of forgery.
• In the first scenario, A wrote a letter in which it was certified that A had good conduct by affixing B’s signature without B’s authority. Such a false document was executed by A with the intention to receive alms from C and any other person and induce C to give possession and control over a property. In this case, A committed the offence of forgery. In the second scenario, A forged a bonafide certificate to be employed under an employer, C by deceiving and inducing him to enter into a contract for service, either implied or expressed. Therefore, the same principle is applied to those cases in which a person fraudulently certifies himself in a letter regarding his good behaviour in order to obtain employment from a company, which results in the conviction of the person who has committed such a fraudulent or dishonest act, which is regarded as a forgery.

Other crimes which are punished under Section 464 IPC

Even after the enactment and subsequent amendment of the Information Technology Act, 2000, many provisions of the 163-year-old criminal code, i.e., the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are used as the only source of weapons for various cyber crimes. If one looks at the First Schedule of the IT Act, 2000, one would identify amendments made to the various provisions that are related to the offence of forgery. The word ‘electronic record’ was added beside the word ‘document’ wherever it was mentioned from Section 463 to 477A.

Now, let us look into those cybercrimes that can be punished under Section 464 of the IPC.

Website defacement

Website defacement is a form of cyberattack in which the attacker hacks a website and starts using it as its own. Firstly, he enters the source code of the website, and then he obtains access to make any kind of changes to it. Taking advantage of such a facility, the attacker dishonestly alters the content of the website and, also, adds new content, which is almost always defamatory. In general, this forging of websites, which is also an electronic record, is used against the government or religious websites for political or religious reasons. Such a dishonest and fraudulent act of altering content on a website and having the intention to make it believe that such alteration is genuine in order to cause wrongful loss to someone is called ‘website defacement’ and can be punishable under Section 465 of the IPC.

False electronic record

Fake accounts

Hearing the expression ‘fake account’ is not new to people in this modern world. Fake social media accounts are those social media accounts, which are also electronic records, that are created by one person and use the name and details of some other person without his or her assent. These instances are becoming more rampant these days. A person who disguises himself, by using a fake Facebook account or other social media account, to gain something inappropriately is said to have committed the offence of making a false document under Section 464 of the IPC and may be punished for such an act.

Digital forgery

In simple terms, ‘digital forgery’ is a forgery involving the use of electronic devices or systems. Forgery is making a false document and deceiving someone into believing that such a document is genuine. Whereas, digital forgery is the making of a false electronic record through the use of digital technology. Due to the advent of more sophisticated technology such as image scanners, desktop publishing systems, inkjet printers, colour lasers, and colour copiers, it became easy for criminals to make fake documents or electronic records, which include cheques, certificates, ID cards, currency, passports, and visas, among other things.

Modern technology like design, copying, and publishing technology is increasing the ability to produce high-quality counterfeit currency and financial instruments such as cheques, money orders, etc. One of the most famous cases was the case of State of Karnataka v. Abdul Kareem Telgi (2017), where Abdul Kareem Telgi, along with many others, was convicted of the offence of counterfeiting stamp papers and postage stamps, which cost several billion rupees. In this way, new technology paved the way for new ways of forging documents and financial instruments.

In addition to this, it may be noticed that Section 467, which deals with the offence of forgery of valuable securities, wills, etc., was not amended. The reason for this is that Section 1(4) of the IT Act, 2000, prevents the IT Act from applying to those documents or transactions that were mentioned under the First Schedule of the same Act. Among those documents are trust deeds, powers of attorney, contracts for sale, wills or transfers of immovable property, etc. Therefore, digital forgery and offences related to it are now covered only under the IPC in accordance with the amendments made by the IT Act, 2000.

Nature of offence under Section 464 IPC

The nature of the offence is non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by the magistrate of first class.

Non-cognizable

Making a false document is a non-cognizable crime due to its less serious nature. That means, the police officer, who is in charge, is empowered to arrest the accused only with a warrant from the magistrate. Additionally, he cannot even proceed with the necessary investigation without receiving permission from the court. Also, generally, these kinds of offences are bailable. 

Bailable

Even though the act of making a false document is said to be forgery under the IPC and is considered a crime, it is not such a serious offence when compared with other crimes. Hence, it is, still, a bailable offence, as shown under the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. For bailable offences, granting bail is a right to the accused as a matter of course. Bail can be granted to the accused of forgery either by the police officer in charge or by the appropriate court after he provides satisfactory sureties for his appearances before the court. 

Non-compoundable

On the grounds of its trivial nature, the offence of forgery falls under the category of non-cognizable and bailable offences. However, it is not so trivial that compromise between parties is allowed after the commission of such an act. Thus, forgery is a non-compoundable offence because it is not included under Section 320 of the CrPC, which provides a list of compoundable offences. The reason behind the exclusion of forgery from that list is that, sometimes, forging a document would not only affect an individual’s rights but also be detrimental to the public at large. So, if any compromise is allowed in these cases, the affected party will be society itself, not just a few individuals.

Triable by the magistrate of the first class

Because of the criminal nature of the offence of forgery, the competent court to hear the case is the criminal court. And, in the First Schedule of the CrPC, it is mentioned that cases of forgery are triable by the magistrate of the first class. After the judge examines the submitted statements, documents, and records of both parties to the suit, the judge will frame charges under Section 228 of the CrPC for further proceedings against the accused. Such further proceedings are held in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC.

Punishment for forgery under Section 464 IPC

Section 465 of the IPC deals with the punishment for forgery, which also includes the offence of ‘making a false document’. It states that the person who committed forgery is punished, under this Section. And, the punishment for the convict of forgery is imprisonment for a maximum period of two years, a fine, or both. Making a false document falls under the crime of forgery, which is also punishable under Section 465.

In the case of Tashi Dadul Bhutia v. State of Sikkim (2011), the accused, who is employed as a sanitation supervisor, committed the offence of making false documents. Here, the document is a trade licence. He also continued to issue those fake trade licences to many persons. For such dishonest acts by the accused, the Court convicted him for one year under Section 471, read with Section 465 of the IPC, and for simple imprisonment of two years under Section 468 of the IPC.

Besides this, in the case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. (2018), it was held by the Supreme Court that, to establish the commission under forgery and make a person punishable under Section 465 of the IPC, all ingredients stated under both Sections 463 and 464 have to be fulfilled.

Important case laws on Section 464 IPC

Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. (2018)

The case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. (2018) is a landmark judgement that strictly interpreted Sections 463, 464, and 465 and held that a person could not be held liable if he or she is not the maker of the document in its literal sense.

Facts of the case

There was a plot in a Valliyoor village, which was owned by Mrs. Doris Victor. Mrs. Victor was the initial complainant and also, the deceased mother of the appellant in the present case. The complainant claimed that R. Jawaharaj, the first accused, illegally impersonated himself as an agent of her by making a Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ‘PoA’) in her name. It was further alleged that he also executed a mortgage deed based on the aforementioned PoA and, subsequently attempted to transfer the said property to Rajapandi, the second accused, for a consideration of Rs. 50,000.

Immediately after knowing this, she lodged a complaint with the nearest police station, which was later registered as an FIR. A final report was filed after the completion of the investigation under Sections 420, 423, and 424 of the IPC. The lower court convicted the accused. The defendants filed an appeal.

Decision and observation of the Madras High Court

The matter reached the High Court of Judicature at Madras on appeal, which resulted in a judgement in favour of the respondent by deciding that his conviction was not maintainable under Section 465 of the IPC.

By referring to the case of Guru Bipin Singh v. Sh. Chongtham Manihar Singh and Anr. (1996), the High Court stated that conviction under Section 464 of the IPC is not proved with appropriate evidence, especially in regards to ‘explanation 2 to Section 464’. The High Court furthered the scrutiny of the explanation, saying that “it is clear that to get attracted to the offence of forgery, ‘making of a false document’ is essential.”

Due to her dissatisfaction with the decision by the High Court, the appellant, the daughter of the complainant, Mrs. Doris Victor, approached the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.

Issues of the case

• Whether the accused can be liable only under Section 464 IPC without proving the ingredients under Section 463 IPC?
• Can the accused be punished under forgery if he is not a maker of the document?

Observation of the Apex Court

After examining the provisions of the IPC, namely Sections 463, 464, and 465, the Supreme Court found a co-relationship between them. That is, while Section 463 defines forgery, Section 464 explains when a false document is said to have been made by the accused, which is one of the ingredients of the forgery that leads to punishment under Section 465. It further observed that, in cases where the commission of forgery is proved as explained under Section 463, provided the ingredients under Section 464 are also satisfied, then conviction under Section 465 will be sustained. Therefore, proving the ingredients of both sections 463 and 464 is necessary to be punished under Section 465. If only one of them is satisfied, then punishment is not possible. 

Besides this, the term ‘making’ means a conscious act by the maker of such disputed documents. The Court, by literally and strictly interpreting the Section, stated that if a person neither created nor signed it, he or she would not be punished under the offence of forgery. It also stated that merely causing a person to make such a document is not making a false document. If the accused himself made a document, then only he or she will be liable under the offence of forgery.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents in the present case are not liable under the crime of forgery. Apart from this, the appellant received control and possession of the property in question through a judgement by a competent Civil Court in a common law action of the institution of suit against the validity of that mortgage deed.

The Court stated that it is not proved that the disputed document, i.e., the PoA, is a false document, and the accused have not made any false document to execute that mortgage deed. Thus, considering neither R. Jawaharaj nor Rajapandi is the maker of the forged document, the Supreme Court upheld the decision taken by the High Court based on the settled legal position.

The Supreme Court further observed that this case is a correct example of poor prosecution as well as a shabby investigation, which led to the conviction of the accused by the lower courts. The Court stressed the care and caution an investigating officer should exercise while exercising his functions. It was evident that the investigating officer in the present case did not investigate the mere fact of who executed the document.

Harvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Harvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) is an important case that takes a significant interpretation of Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC.

Facts of the case

Rajendra Singh gave an application for a caste certificate to the appropriate office in Guna, a city in Madhya Pradesh state. Depending upon the affidavits that support the application, applicant Rajendra Singh received a provisional caste certificate as issued by the Tahsildar concerned, Mr. Virendra Katare, in 2008. Later, he also obtained a permanent caste certificate, which stated that the applicant was ‘Sansi’. Nevertheless, the High Power Scrutiny Committee, which was formed to deal with these kinds of cases, claimed that the caste certificate by the applicant was forged by the government. 

A criminal complaint was lodged against applicant Rajendra Singh under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, stating that it was not mentioned anywhere that he belonged to the ‘Sansi’ caste during his education or initial business career. Instead, he mentioned ‘Sikh’ in various application forms for examinations, as per the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant.

Issues of the case

• Whether the applicants committed the forgery or conspired to commit forgery and cheating?
• Whether a document like a caste certificate issued based on no sufficient evidence be termed a forged document?

Observation of the Court

In cases where such a certificate is issued by someone who does not have the appropriate authority to issue a certificate or the document is prepared or made by himself, then the certificate would be called a false document and would be punished under the offence of forgery due to such an act. However, in the present case, the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.) i.e., the competent authority. Although the caste certificate was issued by the authority without sufficient evidence in hand, that document is not considered forged by the Court. The Court regarded it as a perfectly genuine document.

After referring to Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, the High Court stated that the accused must have personally made a false document by writing or including fake information as per the description mentioned in Section 464 of the IPC, to be punished for the offence of forgery. If merely the stated information in the certificate is false, it is not considered a forgery, but it should also include the act of ‘making’ as explained in Section 464. However, in the present case, the caste certificate was made and issued by the competent authority. And, no applicant neither signed nor sealed to forge someone else’s signature or seal in such a document, rather, it is the Sub-Divisional Officer, who himself signed, made, and issued that caste certificate. 

Therefore, because the document was issued by the officer concerned the document cannot be a forged document as per law even though the content of the certificate is not correct and entered without any support of sufficient evidence, 

Judgement

Based on the above observation, the Court allowed the petitions passed by the applicants, quashed the criminal complaint registered against them, and directed the concerned court to stop trials against the aforementioned applicants. Further, the Court held that the applicants are not liable for forgery or conspiracy to commit forgery under Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC, because the permanent caste certificate is not a forged document. 

Conclusion

To conclude, sections 463 and 464 are becoming saviours for those who fell into the trap of fraud by criminals. These sections indicate that if an accused makes a false document with the intention to defraud or deceive someone, having the object of gaining something wrongfully by causing someone to believe such a document or electronic record is genuine, he will be held liable under sections 463 and 464 of the IPC and be punished accordingly with imprisonment, a fine, or both. However, it should also be noted that merely making a false document without having any kind of intention to cause wrongful loss to someone will not constitute an offence of forgery. Similarly, based on various judicial pronouncements, it is clear that meeting all ingredients under ‘forgery’ is necessary, besides proving ‘making a false document’ in a court of law, to make the accused guilty under Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Whether mens rea is important to constitute the offence of forgery?

Meas rea or criminal intention, is the most important ingredient in proving an act as a forgery, as stated under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If a person committed the offence of making a false document without an intention to cause harm or damage to someone, then such an act does not amount to the offence of forgery. Therefore, the intention should always accompany the act to make the accused guilty of forgery. 

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the intention of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The meaning conveyed by the expression “beyond reasonable doubt” is that an ordinary and prudent person cannot raise even the smallest doubt, no matter how small the doubt is, when a claim is presented in court with evidence. Hence, as we can tell, it is quite a tough job for the prosecution to prove the offence. This rule was introduced to reduce the burden on the judiciary because of frivolous complaints or cases.

What is the difference between mere alteration and material alteration of a document?

In Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was stated that alteration of an important part of a document, which is also known as ‘material alteration’, is regarded as ‘making a false document’. But, there is a thin line between mere alteration and material alteration. That is, if the alteration made has the consequence of affecting the will and interests of the opposite party, then such an alteration is called ‘material alteration’. On the other hand, there will be a few alterations that will not detriment anyone. Sometimes, indeed, they will benefit the opposite party. In such cases, it is just a mere alteration and is not considered as ‘making a false document’.

Can a person who was not a maker of a false document, but caused it to make, be held liable under forgery?

It was a settled law through various judicial decisions that the accused would be convicted of a forgery crime only when he was the maker of that disputed document. Here, the ‘making’ should be interpreted in the legal sense, not literally. Preparing or creating a document is not ‘making’. If a person signs, seals, or executes a document, then it is considered as ‘making’ a false document in the eyes of the law.

Whether an arrest is made with or without a warrant under Section 464 of IPC?

The arrest of the accused is possible by the police officer in charge, although he has no warrant from the court because the crime is less serious comparatively and is non-cognizable.

References

• “The Indian Penal Code” authored by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.
• https://crlreview.in/2019/03/03/forgery-indian-penal-code

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.