KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 336: Forgery

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 336: Forgery

Q1. What does Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?

Answer:

Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines the offence of forgery and prescribes different punishments according to the purpose for which the forgery is committed.

The section covers four matters:

Section 336(1) defines forgery.
Section 336(2) prescribes punishment for ordinary forgery.
Section 336(3) prescribes enhanced punishment where forgery is intended to facilitate cheating.
Section 336(4) prescribes enhanced punishment where forgery is intended or likely to harm the reputation of a person.

The foundation of the offence is the making of:

A false document;
A false electronic record;
Part of a false document; or
Part of a false electronic record,

with one or more of the intentions specified in Section 336(1).

Forgery is therefore not confined to the fabrication of paper documents. It also extends to electronic records, digital documents, altered electronic files, fabricated online records, and false portions of otherwise genuine documents.

Example / Application:

A person creates a false educational certificate in another person’s name and uses it to obtain employment. The creation of the false certificate may amount to forgery under Section 336. Since it was intended to facilitate cheating, the aggravated offence under Section 336(3) may apply.

Q2. What is the object of Section 336?

Answer:

The object of Section 336 is to protect the authenticity and reliability of documents and electronic records.

Modern legal, commercial, financial, governmental, and personal relationships depend heavily upon documents. These may include:

Contracts.
Certificates.
Identity records.
Property documents.
Banking records.
Educational qualifications.
Employment records.
Court documents.
Electronic communications.
Digital authorisations.
Receipts and acknowledgements.

Forgery undermines confidence in such records. It may be used to:

Create false legal rights.
Destroy genuine rights.
Obtain property.
Deceive public authorities.
Defraud individuals or institutions.
Damage a person’s reputation.
Support false claims.
Induce contractual obligations.

Section 336 therefore criminalises the intentional creation or alteration of false documentary or electronic material before it causes the intended harm.

Example / Application:

A person digitally alters a genuine land record to show himself as the owner. The law intervenes because the altered record may support a false claim to property and cause injury to the true owner.

Q3. Which provisions of the Indian Penal Code correspond to Section 336?

Answer:

Section 336 consolidates several provisions formerly contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The corresponding provisions are:

Section 336(1) BNS corresponds to Section 463 IPC, which defined forgery.
Section 336(2) BNS corresponds to Section 465 IPC, which prescribed punishment for forgery.
Section 336(3) BNS corresponds to Section 468 IPC, which dealt with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
Section 336(4) BNS corresponds to Section 469 IPC, which dealt with forgery intended to harm reputation.

The language of these provisions has substantially been retained.

The BNS brings the definition and the principal punishments relating to forgery together within one section, thereby presenting the law in a more consolidated form.

Q4. What is the general meaning of forgery?

Answer:

Forgery generally means the making of a false document or false electronic record with a fraudulent, dishonest, deceptive, or injurious intention.

In simple terms, forgery occurs when a person makes something appear to be a genuine document or record when it is not genuine, and does so for an unlawful purpose.

Forgery may consist of:

Creating an entirely false document.
Signing another person’s name without authority.
Altering a genuine document materially.
Changing dates, amounts, names, or terms.
Fabricating a digital record.
Manipulating an electronic signature.
Creating a false part of an otherwise genuine document.
Causing another person to execute a document through deception.
Using another person’s electronic authentication without authority.

The essence of forgery is not merely that the contents are untrue. The document or electronic record must be a false document or false electronic record within the meaning of Section 335 BNS.

Example / Application:

A person writes a letter containing lies in his own name. The letter may contain false statements, but it is not necessarily a forged document because it genuinely originates from him. By contrast, if he writes the letter and falsely represents that another person authored and signed it, it may amount to forgery.

Q5. What is the historical concept of forgery?

Answer:

Forgery has existed since written instruments began to be used as evidence of rights, duties, identity, and authority.

Under traditional English common law, forgery was broadly understood as the fraudulent making of a false instrument with the intention that it should be accepted as genuine.

The central idea was that a document falsely purported to be something that it was not.

Historically, the law recognised that forgery could be committed even where the entire document was not fabricated. A false signature, altered amount, substituted page, or fabricated material entry could make the relevant document forged.

The modern concept has expanded beyond written paper instruments. It now covers:

Electronic records.
Digitally signed files.
Computer-generated documents.
Electronic databases.
Scanned and altered certificates.
Digital payment records.
Online authorisations.

Thus, the law of forgery has developed from protecting traditional written instruments to protecting documentary and electronic authenticity generally.

Q6. What are the essential ingredients of forgery under Section 336(1)?

Answer:

To establish forgery under Section 336(1), the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients:

First Ingredient – Making a False Document or False Electronic Record

The accused must make:

A false document;
A false electronic record;
Part of a false document; or
Part of a false electronic record.

The expression “makes” is not confined to creating a document from the beginning. It may include materially altering, signing, executing, transmitting, or manipulating a document or electronic record in circumstances recognised by Section 335.

Second Ingredient – One of the Specified Intentions

The false document or electronic record must be made with one or more of the following intentions:

To cause damage or injury to the public.
To cause damage or injury to any person.
To support any claim.
To support any title.
To cause any person to part with property.
To cause any person to enter into an express contract.
To cause any person to enter into an implied contract.
To commit fraud.
To enable fraud to be committed.

Both the making of a false document and the required criminal intention must coexist.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a receipt showing that he has paid a debt, intending to defeat the creditor’s claim. He makes a false document to support a false defence and cause injury to the creditor. This may constitute forgery.

Q7. Is making a false document the foundation of forgery?

Answer:

Yes.

The making of a false document or false electronic record is the foundational requirement of forgery.

A person cannot ordinarily be convicted of forgery merely because:

A statement is false.
A claim is dishonest.
A document contains incorrect information.
A representation is misleading.

The prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document or false electronic record in one of the legally recognised ways.

The question is therefore not merely whether the document contains false information. The court must examine whether the document falsely purports:

To have been made by another person;
To have been authorised by another person;
To have been made at another time;
To have been executed under circumstances different from the truth; or
To be an altered version of a genuine document.

Example / Application:

A person submits an application in his own name and deliberately gives an incorrect age. The statement may be false and may attract other offences, but it is not automatically forgery. If he fabricates a birth certificate purporting to have been issued by a public authority, the certificate is a false document and forgery may be established.

Q8. What is meant by making only “part of a document” false?

Answer:

It is not necessary for the entire document to be fabricated.

Section 336 expressly covers the making of a false:

Part of a document; or
Part of an electronic record.

A genuine document may become forged where a material part is dishonestly or fraudulently altered.

Material alterations may include changing:

The name of a beneficiary.
The amount payable.
The date of execution.
The period of validity.
The identity of the signatory.
The property description.
The terms of a contract.
The account number.
The digital signature.
The recipient’s details.

The alteration must be significant in the sense that it affects the legal, financial, evidentiary, or practical operation of the document.

Example / Application:

A cheque is genuinely signed for ₹10,000, but another person adds an extra zero and changes it to ₹1,00,000. Although most of the cheque is genuine, the material alteration may constitute forgery.

Q9. Does Section 336 apply to electronic records?

Answer:

Yes.

Section 336 expressly applies to false electronic records and parts of electronic records.

Electronic forgery may involve:

Altering a digitally signed agreement.
Fabricating an electronic certificate.
Manipulating a digital invoice.
Changing data in an electronic register.
Creating a false email purporting to originate from another person.
Using another person’s digital signature without authority.
Altering electronic banking records.
Fabricating an online payment confirmation.
Manipulating computer-generated reports.
Creating false electronic identity records.

The inclusion of electronic records ensures that the law applies equally to traditional documentary forgery and modern digital deception.

Example / Application:

A person alters an electronically generated salary certificate and changes the employer’s details and salary amount to secure a bank loan. The altered electronic record may constitute forgery.

Q10. What does “intent to cause damage or injury” mean?

Answer:

Forgery is committed where a false document or electronic record is made with the intention of causing damage or injury:

To the public; or
To any person.

The intended injury need not always be physical or financial. It may include harm to:

Property.
Reputation.
Legal rights.
Contractual rights.
Employment prospects.
Civil status.
Public administration.
Institutional credibility.

The offence may be complete even if the intended damage or injury does not ultimately occur. The relevant consideration is the accused’s intention at the time of making the false document.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a disciplinary order falsely showing that an employee was dismissed for corruption. Even if the order is discovered before the employee loses his job, its creation with intent to cause injury may amount to forgery.

Q11. What does forgery intended to support a claim or title mean?

Answer:

Forgery may be committed where a false document or electronic record is made to support:

A claim; or
A title.

A “claim” may include an assertion of entitlement to:

Money.
Property.
Compensation.
Employment.
Government benefits.
Insurance proceeds.
Contractual rights.
Inheritance.

A “title” ordinarily refers to a legal claim to ownership or another proprietary interest.

The claim or title need not ultimately succeed. It is sufficient that the false document is made with the intention of supporting it.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates an old sale deed to establish ownership over another person’s land. The false deed is intended to support a false title and therefore may constitute forgery.

Q12. What does causing a person to part with property mean?

Answer:

Forgery is committed where a false document or electronic record is made with the intention of inducing another person to part with property.

Property may include:

Money.
Movable goods.
Valuable securities.
Digital assets.
Documents of title.
Financial instruments.
Possession of property.

The accused need not actually obtain the property. The offence of forgery may be complete when the false document is made with the required intention.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a bank payment instruction purporting to have been signed by the account holder, intending that the bank should transfer money. The false instruction is made to cause the bank or account holder to part with property.

Q13. What does causing a person to enter into an express or implied contract mean?

Answer:

Section 336 includes forgery intended to cause a person to enter into:

An express contract; or
An implied contract.

An express contract is one whose terms are stated orally or in writing.

An implied contract is inferred from the conduct of the parties or surrounding circumstances.

A false document may induce a person to enter a transaction that he would not otherwise have accepted.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a financial statement showing that his company is profitable and presents it to a supplier to obtain goods on credit. If the supplier enters into a supply contract in reliance upon it, the fabricated statement may constitute forgery.

Q14. What does “with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed” mean?

Answer:

This part of Section 336 gives the offence a broad preventive scope.

Forgery is committed where the accused makes a false document:

With the intention of personally committing fraud; or
With the intention that another person may use it to commit fraud.

The provision therefore covers both:

Direct forgery for the accused’s own fraudulent scheme; and
Preparation of forged material for use by another person.

Fraud ordinarily involves deliberate deception intended to secure an unlawful advantage or cause wrongful loss.

Example / Application:

A person prepares forged salary slips and sells them to loan applicants, knowing that the slips will be used to deceive banks. Even if the maker does not personally apply for a loan, he may commit forgery because he intends that fraud should be committed.

Q15. Is an intention to deceive always sufficient to constitute forgery?

Answer:

An intention to deceive is highly relevant, but the statutory requirements must still be satisfied.

The prosecution must prove:

The making of a false document or false electronic record; and
One of the intentions specified in Section 336(1).

Deception may be evidence of fraudulent intention, but every deceptive statement does not automatically amount to forgery.

A distinction must be drawn between:

A false statement made by a person in his own name; and
A document falsely made to appear as though it was created, signed, authorised, or issued by someone else.

Example / Application:

A trader exaggerates the quality of his goods in a letter signed by himself. This may be deceptive, but the letter is genuinely his. If he fabricates a quality certificate purporting to have been issued by an independent laboratory, he may commit forgery.

Q16. Is actual damage, injury, fraud, or deception necessary?

Answer:

No.

Section 336 primarily focuses on the intention with which the false document is made.

It is generally unnecessary to prove that:

The intended victim was actually deceived.
Property was actually transferred.
The false claim succeeded.
The contract was actually concluded.
Financial loss occurred.
The accused obtained a benefit.

The offence may be complete upon the making of the false document with the required intention.

However, actual use, deception, or loss may provide strong evidence of the accused’s intention and may also attract additional offences such as cheating or using a forged document as genuine.

Example / Application:

A person creates a forged bank guarantee to obtain a contract but is arrested before submitting it. The absence of actual loss does not necessarily prevent liability for forgery.

Q17. Must the forged document appear genuine or be capable of deceiving an expert?

Answer:

A forged document need not be perfect.

The quality of imitation may be relevant in deciding whether the accused genuinely intended the document to be accepted as authentic. However, poor workmanship does not automatically exclude forgery.

The court considers:

The nature of the document.
The intended recipient.
The surrounding circumstances.
The degree of resemblance.
The accused’s conduct.
The purpose for which it was made.

A crude forgery may still constitute an offence where it was made with the intention of deceiving a person who might accept it as genuine.

Example / Application:

A fabricated employment letter contains spelling mistakes but bears a copied company logo and forged signature. It may still amount to forgery if it was intended to deceive a landlord or bank.

Q18. How may intention in a forgery case be proved?

Answer:

Intention is a state of mind and is rarely proved by direct evidence. It is usually inferred from facts and circumstances.

Relevant circumstances may include:

Possession of the forged document.
Motive for creating it.
Use or attempted use.
Benefit expected by the accused.
Concealment of the document’s origin.
False explanations.
Access to genuine signatures or records.
Recovery of equipment or templates.
Alterations visible in the document.
Communications between participants.
Conduct before and after the offence.

The prosecution must establish the required intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Example / Application:

A person creates multiple false experience certificates, stores editable templates on his computer, and sends them to job applicants for payment. These circumstances may establish an intention that fraud should be committed.

Q19. What is the punishment for ordinary forgery under Section 336(2)?

Answer:

Section 336(2) prescribes the general punishment for forgery.

A person who commits forgery may be punished with:

Imprisonment of either description for a term extending to two years;
Fine; or
Both imprisonment and fine.

The expression “either description” means that the imprisonment may be:

Simple imprisonment; or
Rigorous imprisonment.

Classification under the information provided

The offence under Section 336(2) is:

Non-cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a private letter in another person’s name with intent to cause injury, but the case does not fall within a more aggravated category. He may be punished under Section 336(2).

Q20. What is forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 336(3)?

Answer:

Section 336(3) deals with an aggravated form of forgery.

It applies where a person commits forgery intending that the forged document or electronic record shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

The prosecution must prove:

The accused committed forgery.
The accused intended the forged document to be used.
The intended use was for cheating.

The document need not actually be used, and cheating need not be completed. The intention at the time of forgery is sufficient.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a university degree intending to submit it to an employer to obtain a job. Since the forgery is intended to deceive the employer and obtain employment, Section 336(3) may apply.

Q21. What is the punishment under Section 336(3)?

Answer:

A person who commits forgery intending that the forged document or electronic record shall be used for cheating may be punished with:

Imprisonment of either description for a term extending to seven years; and
Fine.

Unlike Section 336(2), where fine or imprisonment may be imposed separately, Section 336(3) states that the offender shall also be liable to fine.

Classification under the information provided

The offence under Section 336(3) is:

Cognizable.
Non-bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Example / Application:

A person creates forged property documents to persuade a buyer to pay for land that does not belong to him. The forgery is intended for cheating and may attract imprisonment extending to seven years and fine.

Q22. Is completion of cheating necessary for Section 336(3)?

Answer:

No.

The aggravated offence under Section 336(3) is based on the intention that the forged document should be used for cheating.

It is not necessary that:

The document was actually presented.
The victim believed it.
The victim transferred property.
The intended cheating succeeded.

The offence is complete when the accused commits forgery with the specified intention.

Example / Application:

A person prepares a forged loan sanction letter intending to persuade an investor to advance money. He is arrested before sending it. Section 336(3) may still apply because the document was forged for cheating.

Q23. What is forgery intended to harm reputation under Section 336(4)?

Answer:

Section 336(4) punishes forgery committed with the intention that the forged document or electronic record should harm the reputation of any party.

It also applies where the accused knows that the forged document is likely to be used for that purpose.

The prosecution may establish either:

A direct intention to harm reputation; or
Knowledge that the document is likely to be used to harm reputation.

The word “party” is broad enough to cover a person or entity whose reputation may be affected by the forged material.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates a letter falsely appearing to have been written by a public official and containing admissions of corruption. The document is circulated to damage the official’s reputation. This may attract Section 336(4).

Q24. What is the punishment under Section 336(4)?

Answer:

A person who commits forgery intending to harm reputation, or knowing that the forged document is likely to be used for that purpose, may be punished with:

Imprisonment of either description for a term extending to three years; and
Fine.

The classification for Section 336(4) was not included in the classification material supplied with the provision and should therefore be stated separately only after reference to the applicable procedural schedule.

Example / Application:

A person creates a fabricated intimate letter purporting to have been written by another individual and publishes it to expose that person to ridicule. The offender may be punished under Section 336(4).

Q25. What is the difference between ordinary forgery and forgery for cheating?

Answer:

The distinction depends primarily upon the accused’s intention.

Ordinary Forgery under Section 336(2)

The accused makes a false document for any purpose covered by Section 336(1), such as:

Causing injury.
Supporting a claim.
Supporting a title.
Causing a person to enter into a contract.
Facilitating fraud.

The maximum punishment is two years, fine, or both.

Forgery for Cheating under Section 336(3)

The forged document is specifically intended to be used for cheating.

The maximum punishment is seven years and fine.

Section 336(3) is therefore an aggravated form of forgery because the false document is created as an instrument of cheating.

Example / Application:

Fabricating another person’s letter merely to annoy or injure him may fall under ordinary forgery. Fabricating a bank statement to obtain a loan is forgery intended for cheating.

Q26. What is the difference between forgery and cheating?

Answer:

Forgery and cheating are separate offences, although they frequently occur together.

Forgery

Forgery concerns the making of a false document or electronic record with a prohibited intention.

The offence may be complete even before the document is used.

Cheating

Cheating generally involves:

Deception of a person;
Fraudulent or dishonest inducement; and
Delivery of property, consent to retain property, or an act or omission causing harm.

Forgery focuses on the false document. Cheating focuses on deception and inducement.

A person may commit:

Forgery without completed cheating.
Cheating without forgery.
Both forgery and cheating in the same transaction.

Example / Application:

A person forges a property deed but is arrested before showing it to anyone. Forgery may be complete, while cheating may not have been completed. If he presents the deed and induces a purchaser to pay money, both offences may arise.

Q27. What is the difference between forgery and using a forged document as genuine?

Answer:

The two offences concern different acts.

Forgery under Section 336

Forgery involves making the false document or false electronic record.

Using a Forged Document under Section 340(2)

Section 340(2) applies where a person:

Fraudulently or dishonestly uses a document as genuine;
Knowing or having reason to believe that it is forged.

The maker and user may be:

The same person; or
Different persons.

Example / Application:

A creates a forged degree certificate. B knows that it is forged and submits it for employment. A may be liable for forgery, while B may be liable for using a forged document as genuine.

Q28. Can the maker of a forged document also be punished for using it as genuine?

Answer:

Yes, where the evidence establishes both distinct acts.

A person may:

First commit forgery by making the false document; and
Later use that document as genuine.

The act of making and the act of using may constitute separate offences, although the precise charges and punishment will depend upon the facts and applicable principles concerning joint trial and sentencing.

Example / Application:

A person creates a forged income certificate and later submits it to obtain a scholarship. The creation may attract Section 336, while the later submission may attract Section 340(2).

Q29. Is possession of a forged document itself forgery?

Answer:

Mere possession is not the same as making a forged document.

Forgery under Section 336 requires the making of a false document or electronic record.

However, possession of certain forged documents may separately be punishable under Section 339 where the accused:

Knows that the document is forged; and
Intends that it should fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine.

Thus:

Section 336 concerns creation.
Section 339 concerns possession of specified forged documents with guilty knowledge and intention.
Section 340(2) concerns actual use as genuine.

Example / Application:

A person obtains a forged will from another person and keeps it intending to use it in succession proceedings. Although he may not have created it, his possession may attract Section 339.

Q30. Can forgery be committed in relation to a document that does not have legal validity?

Answer:

The mere fact that a document is ultimately invalid or legally unenforceable does not necessarily prevent it from being forged.

The court examines whether:

It is a document or electronic record.
It was falsely made.
It purported to possess authenticity, authority, or legal significance.
It was made with one of the intentions specified in Section 336.

Even an ineffective document may be capable of causing injury or facilitating fraud if another person could be deceived by it.

Example / Application:

A forged agreement may be legally defective for lack of registration. Nevertheless, its fabrication may constitute forgery if it was intended to support a false claim or deceive another person.

Q31. Can forgery be committed by altering one’s own document?

Answer:

Yes, in appropriate circumstances.

Forgery is not always limited to signing another person’s name. A person may commit forgery by materially altering a document that he originally created or lawfully possessed, particularly where the alteration falsely represents:

Another person’s authority.
A completed transaction.
A different date.
A different obligation.
A different legal effect.

The decisive question is whether the alteration results in a false document under Section 335 and is accompanied by the intention required under Section 336.

Example / Application:

A creditor alters a receipt previously issued by him to show that the debtor acknowledged a larger debt. Although the creditor originally made the receipt, the unauthorised material alteration may constitute forgery.

Q32. What is the importance of the expression “fraudulently or dishonestly” in forgery cases?

Answer:

Although Section 336 sets out particular intentions, the concepts of fraud and dishonesty remain central to the offence.

A person acts dishonestly where the conduct is intended to cause:

Wrongful gain to one person; or
Wrongful loss to another.

Fraudulent conduct involves deliberate deception designed to secure an unlawful advantage or produce an injurious consequence.

The court must examine the entire transaction rather than relying only upon the form of the document.

Example / Application:

A person alters a contract amount due to an accidental typing error and immediately informs the parties. This lacks fraudulent or dishonest intention. By contrast, secretly altering the amount to obtain additional payment may constitute forgery.

Q33. Does copying another person’s signature amount to forgery?

Answer:

It may amount to forgery where a person signs or copies another person’s signature without authority and thereby makes the document falsely appear to have been signed or authorised by that person.

The prosecution must prove:

The signature was not genuine or authorised.
The accused made or caused it to be made.
The document became a false document.
The accused possessed the intention required by Section 336.

A signature may be forged by:

Handwriting imitation.
Tracing.
Stamping.
Scanning and pasting.
Digital reproduction.
Unauthorised electronic signature.

Example / Application:

An employee scans the director’s signature and places it on a fabricated authorisation letter to withdraw company funds. The act may constitute forgery.

Q34. Does signing another person’s name with authority constitute forgery?

Answer:

Ordinarily, no, provided the person acts within genuine authority and does not falsely represent the nature or scope of that authority.

A signature made by an authorised agent may be valid.

Forgery may arise where:

No authority exists.
The authority has expired or been revoked.
The person exceeds the authority.
The signature is made in a manner falsely implying personal execution by the principal.
The document is created for a fraudulent purpose.

Example / Application:

A manager authorised to sign routine purchase orders signs one within the permitted limit. This is not forgery. If he uses the director’s signature on a property transfer for which he has no authority, the act may constitute forgery.

Q35. Can a blank signed document later be converted into a forged document?

Answer:

Yes, where a person dishonestly or fraudulently fills in or alters a blank signed document beyond the authority given by the signatory.

The court will consider:

Why the blank document was signed.
What authority was given.
Whether the completed terms exceeded that authority.
Whether the accused intended injury, fraud, or wrongful gain.

Example / Application:

A person gives a signed blank cheque authorising payment up to ₹10,000. The recipient fills in ₹10,00,000 contrary to that authority. The unauthorised completion may amount to making a false document and therefore forgery.

Q36. What is the significance of the decision in L.K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma?

Answer:

In L.K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma, AIR 1954 Mys 119, false marriage invitations were alleged to have been prepared and circulated announcing a marriage between Lalithamma and Siddappa.

The invitations were distributed to friends and relatives and were also caused to be published in newspapers. The allegation was that this was done with intent to deceive and cause injury to Lalithamma.

The court treated the fabricated marriage invitations as false documents within the meaning of the provision corresponding to present Section 335 BNS. The accused was found guilty of forgery and punished under the provision corresponding to present Section 336(2).

The case illustrates several important principles:

A forged document need not relate only to property or money.
A fabricated social or personal document may constitute forgery.
False marriage invitations may cause reputational and personal injury.
The entire document need not be an official instrument.
The intention to deceive and injure may bring the act within forgery.

Example / Application:

A person fabricates and circulates a wedding invitation falsely announcing that a woman is marrying him, intending to embarrass her and damage her reputation. Applying the reasoning in the case, the invitation may constitute a false document and its creation may amount to forgery.

Q37. What must the prosecution prove in a trial for forgery?

Answer:

Depending upon the charge, the prosecution must establish:

The existence of the disputed document or electronic record.
That it is false.
That the accused made it or participated in making it.
That the making was dishonest, fraudulent, or otherwise accompanied by the intention specified in Section 336.
The particular purpose of the forgery where an aggravated charge is brought.
The identity of the accused as the maker or participant.

Evidence may include:

Handwriting or signature evidence.
Electronic metadata.
Device records.
Forensic examination.
Witness testimony.
Admissions or confessions lawfully proved.
Recovery of templates, seals, or instruments.
Communications between accused persons.
Evidence of use or attempted use.
Circumstantial evidence showing motive and benefit.

Mere suspicion or possession of a disputed document is not automatically sufficient to prove that the accused forged it.

Q38. Is expert evidence always necessary in a forgery case?

Answer:

No.

Expert evidence may be useful in examining:

Handwriting.
Signatures.
Ink and paper.
Digital records.
Electronic signatures.
Metadata.
Alterations.
Printing or scanning techniques.

However, expert opinion is not invariably essential. Forgery may also be proved through:

Direct evidence.
Admissions.
Circumstantial evidence.
Testimony of the supposed signatory.
Evidence of unauthorised access.
Recovery of source files or templates.
Conduct of the accused.

The weight of expert evidence depends on the facts and its consistency with the other evidence.

Example / Application:

Where the accused admits creating the false certificate, handwriting expert evidence may not be necessary. Where authorship is disputed, forensic examination may become important.

Q39. Can several persons be liable for the same forgery?

Answer:

Yes.

Forgery may be committed through the participation of several persons.

One person may:

Design the document.
Obtain genuine samples.
Copy the signature.
Alter the electronic file.
Print the document.
Arrange its use.
Supply it to the intended user.

Liability may arise under provisions relating to:

Common intention.
Abetment.
Criminal conspiracy.
Use of forged documents.
Possession of forged documents.

The prosecution must prove the role and guilty intention of each accused.

Example / Application:

One person creates a false degree template, another adds forged signatures, and a third sells the certificate to applicants. Each may incur criminal liability according to his participation and intention.

Q40. What is the difference between a false statement and a false document?

Answer:

This distinction is fundamental.

False Statement

A person makes an untrue assertion but does so in his own identity and does not falsely attribute the document to someone else or materially falsify its execution.

False Document

The document is made to falsely represent that:

It was made by another person.
It was signed by another person.
It was authorised by another person.
It was executed at another time.
It was materially altered by an authorised person.
It carries authenticity that it does not possess.

A false statement may attract offences such as cheating, false evidence, or misrepresentation, but it does not automatically constitute forgery.

Example / Application:

A person writes in his own application that he earns ₹1,00,000 per month when he earns ₹20,000. This is a false statement. If he creates a fabricated salary certificate purporting to have been issued by his employer, he makes a false document.

Q41. How does Section 336 relate to Sections 337 and 338?

Answer:

Section 336 contains the general definition and punishment for forgery.

Sections 337 and 338 deal with aggravated forgery involving specially protected documents.

Section 336

Covers forgery generally, including forgery for cheating and forgery intended to harm reputation.

Section 337

Deals with forgery of:

Court records.
Government identity documents.
Public registers.
Official certificates.
Powers of attorney.
Authorities relating to suits.

Section 338

Deals with forgery of:

Valuable securities.
Wills.
Authorities to adopt.
Financial authorisations.
Receipts and acquittances involving money, property, or securities.

The nature of the forged document and the purpose of the forgery determine the applicable provision.

Example / Application:

Forgery of an ordinary private letter may fall under Section 336. Forgery of a court order falls under Section 337. Forgery of a will falls under Section 338.

Q42. Why does Section 336 prescribe graded punishments?

Answer:

The section distinguishes between degrees of seriousness.

Ordinary forgery may cause limited or general injury.
Forgery for cheating is more serious because it is designed to induce deception and wrongful transfer or advantage.
Forgery intended to harm reputation directly attacks a person’s social standing and dignity.

The graded punishments reflect:

The accused’s object.
The likely harm.
The nature of the intended deception.
The social consequences of the forged record.

Thus, the punishment increases where the forged document is intended to facilitate cheating or reputational harm.

Q43. What are common practical examples of forgery?

Answer:

Common examples include:

Forging a signature on a cheque.
Altering the amount in a receipt.
Creating a false degree certificate.
Fabricating an employment letter.
Altering a land deed.
Creating a false bank statement.
Manipulating a digital payment confirmation.
Fabricating an income certificate.
Changing the date on an official document.
Creating a false medical certificate.
Copying another person’s digital signature.
Fabricating an email purporting to be from an employer.
Creating false marriage invitations to injure reputation.
Altering an electronic contract after execution.
Preparing false invoices for financial fraud.

Each case must still satisfy the statutory requirements concerning the making of a false document and the accused’s intention.

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

Nature of Forgery

Forgery consists of making:

A false document.
A false electronic record.
Part of a false document.
Part of a false electronic record.

The making must be accompanied by one of the intentions specified in Section 336(1).

Intentions Covered by Section 336(1)

The false document must be made with intent:

To cause damage or injury to the public.
To cause damage or injury to any person.
To support a claim.
To support a title.
To cause a person to part with property.
To cause a person to enter into an express contract.
To cause a person to enter into an implied contract.
To commit fraud.
To enable fraud to be committed.

Essential Ingredients

The prosecution must prove:

Making of a false document or electronic record.
Participation of the accused in making it.
One of the prescribed criminal intentions.
A connection between the false document and the intended unlawful purpose.

Important Principles

A false statement is not automatically a false document.
The entire document need not be fabricated.
A material alteration may constitute forgery.
Electronic records are expressly covered.
Actual damage or successful fraud is not always necessary.
The intention existing at the time of making is central.
Forgery may be complete before the document is used.
The maker and the user of a forged document may be different persons.
Poor quality or incomplete imitation does not automatically exclude forgery.
Forgery may concern personal or reputational injury and is not limited to property offences.

Section 336(2) – Ordinary Forgery

Punishment

Imprisonment of either description up to two years; or
Fine; or
Both.

Classification

Non-cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Corresponding IPC Provision

Section 465 IPC.

Section 336(3) – Forgery for the Purpose of Cheating

Requirements

Forgery must be committed.
The accused must intend the forged document or electronic record to be used for cheating.
Actual cheating need not be completed.

Punishment

Imprisonment of either description up to seven years; and
Fine.

Classification

Cognizable.
Non-bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.

Corresponding IPC Provision

Section 468 IPC.

Section 336(4) – Forgery Intended to Harm Reputation

Requirements

The accused must:

Intend that the forged document should harm the reputation of a party; or
Know that it is likely to be used for that purpose.

Punishment

Imprisonment of either description up to three years; and
Fine.

Corresponding IPC Provision

Section 469 IPC.

Corresponding IPC Provisions

Section 336(1) BNS corresponds to Section 463 IPC.
Section 336(2) BNS corresponds to Section 465 IPC.
Section 336(3) BNS corresponds to Section 468 IPC.
Section 336(4) BNS corresponds to Section 469 IPC.

The substantive language has largely been retained.

L.K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma – Examination Note

The case involved fabricated marriage invitations announcing a marriage between the complainant and the accused.

The invitations were circulated among relatives and friends and were also published.

The court treated the fabricated invitations as false documents and upheld liability for forgery.

The case demonstrates that:

Forgery is not confined to financial documents.
A fabricated social document may be forged.
Reputational and personal injury are legally relevant.
False attribution of a document may satisfy the requirement of making a false document.
Actual financial loss is not essential.

Key Takeaway

Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the principal provision defining and punishing forgery. The offence is committed when a person makes a false document, false electronic record, or any false part thereof with the intention of causing damage or injury, supporting a claim or title, inducing a person to part with property or enter into a contract, or committing or facilitating fraud.

The central requirement is not merely the presence of false information. The accused must make a document or electronic record that is legally regarded as false under Section 335. A document may be forged wholly or partly, and a material alteration of a genuine document may be sufficient.

Section 336 prescribes graded liability. Ordinary forgery is punishable with imprisonment extending to two years, fine, or both. Forgery intended for cheating is punishable with imprisonment extending to seven years and fine, while forgery intended or likely to harm reputation is punishable with imprisonment extending to three years and fine.

The provision applies equally to paper and electronic records. It therefore protects the reliability of traditional documents as well as digital certificates, electronic contracts, computer records, digital signatures, and online communications. The decision in L.K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma further demonstrates that forgery is not confined to property or financial documents; even fabricated marriage invitations intended to deceive and cause personal or reputational injury may constitute the offence.

LAW

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 336: Forgery

Author

Archives

Categories