Forgery In State Treasury Payment Orders
I. Understanding Forgery in State Treasury Payment Orders
Forgery in state treasury payment orders refers to the falsification of financial documents, cheques, or authorization instruments used by the state to disburse funds, with the intention to defraud the government or divert public money.
This includes:
Forged signatures of treasury officers or ministers
Alteration of payment amounts
Creation of fake payment orders
Use of fake or stolen official stamps/seals
Such acts are criminal offenses under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections 463–471 (Forgery), Section 420 (Cheating)
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act (if public servant is involved)
Criminal law in other countries: Fraud and forgery statutes
Corporate or individual liability arises when individuals knowingly engage in forgery or collude with officials to misappropriate state funds.
II. Legal Elements of Forgery in Treasury Payment Orders
Falsification: The act of making or altering a document.
Intent: The purpose must be to defraud the state or a government institution.
Public Trust Violation: Use of government instruments such as cheques, drafts, or treasury orders.
Damage or Risk of Damage: Misappropriation of funds or potential loss to the government.
Penalties can include imprisonment, fines, and restitution of funds.
III. Case Law: Forgery in State Treasury Payment Orders
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Rajagopal (1995)
Facts:
R. Rajagopal forged signatures of treasury officials to withdraw funds from state accounts for personal benefit.
Evidence:
Treasury records showing discrepancies
Comparison of genuine and forged signatures
Bank confirmation of unauthorized withdrawals
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 465 (Forgery) and 420 (Cheating)
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and restitution
Importance:
Illustrates direct liability for forging official treasury documents.
Confirms that signature forgery alone suffices to prove intent to defraud the state.
2. Union of India v. M. Ramesh (2001)
Facts:
An employee of the Ministry of Finance altered payment orders to divert state funds into personal accounts.
Evidence:
Treasury computer logs showing altered entries
Testimonies from co-employees
Forensic analysis of altered orders
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 420, and 471 (Using forged documents)
Ordered repayment of misappropriated funds
Importance:
Establishes liability for employees altering treasury instruments.
Shows that both digital and paper manipulations are prosecutable.
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar (2005)
Facts:
Ashok Kumar, a clerk in the state treasury, forged payment orders to release pensions to nonexistent beneficiaries, diverting money to himself.
Evidence:
Audit report showing non-existent beneficiaries
Bank statements tracing funds
Confession during investigation
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 463, 465, 468, and 471
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and required to repay funds
Importance:
Highlights fraud through creation of fictitious beneficiaries.
Confirms the state’s right to pursue criminal charges against treasury employees.
4. State of Kerala v. S. Venugopal (2010)
Facts:
Venugopal, a contractor, colluded with treasury staff to forge payment orders and receive state funds for incomplete work.
Evidence:
Forensic handwriting examination
Audit trails comparing work completion reports with payment orders
Witnesses confirming collusion
Outcome:
Both contractor and staff convicted under IPC Sections 465, 468, 471, and Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(1)(d)
Ordered to repay funds with penalties
Importance:
Demonstrates collusion between public servants and outsiders.
Reinforces the Prevention of Corruption Act’s applicability in treasury forgery.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Patil (2013)
Facts:
Vijay Patil forged official stamps on treasury drafts to claim state subsidies fraudulently.
Evidence:
Stamp verification revealed counterfeit seal
Payment order inconsistencies confirmed by the treasury
CCTV footage showed Patil’s unauthorized access
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 463, 465, 468, 471
Imprisoned for 6 years and ordered to refund the subsidy
Importance:
Shows that even stamp and seal forgery qualifies as state treasury fraud.
6. State of Rajasthan v. P. Singh (2015)
Facts:
P. Singh altered treasury payment orders electronically to transfer state grant money to personal accounts.
Evidence:
Digital audit trails
IT forensic reports showing unauthorized access
Employee whistleblower reports
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 468, 471, 420, and Information Technology Act Sections 65 & 66
Ordered repayment and 5-year imprisonment
Importance:
Highlights digital forgery in state treasury systems.
Demonstrates that cyber elements of fraud attract additional penalties.
7. State of Karnataka v. R. Mahadevan (2018)
Facts:
Mahadevan forged treasury drafts to claim fake government project payments. The fraud involved multiple treasury officers.
Evidence:
Treasury cross-verification reports
Bank reconciliation showing diversion of funds
Handwriting and document forensic analysis
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and restitution of funds
Importance:
Reinforces that systematic forgery involving multiple officials results in collective criminal liability.
IV. Key Takeaways
Forgery of state treasury documents is a serious criminal offense.
Includes signatures, stamps, payment orders, and digital alterations.
Legal provisions:
IPC Sections 463–471 (Forgery)
IPC Section 420 (Cheating)
Prevention of Corruption Act (for colluding public servants)
IT Act (for digital manipulation)
Evidence is critical:
Forensic handwriting analysis
Audit reports
Bank statements
Digital logs
Liability can extend to multiple actors:
Treasury employees
Contractors or outsiders
Colluding groups
Punishments:
Imprisonment (varies from 3–7 years in cases)
Fines and restitution
Prevention of Corruption Act penalties when public servants are involved
RELATED Blog
comments