Identity And Credit Card Fraud
Forgery and Document Offenses
1. Introduction
Forgery refers to the act of fraudulently making, altering, or using a document with intent to deceive. These offenses are serious because they undermine trust in legal, commercial, and personal dealings.
Relevant Sections under IPC:
Section 463 IPC: Definition of forgery – “Whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury is said to commit forgery.”
Sections 464–477A IPC: Various forms of forgery, use of forged documents, falsification of accounts, cheating by forgery, etc.
2. Essential Elements of Forgery
Making of a false document – It must be “false,” not just inaccurate.
Intent to cause injury or fraud – Mere writing false statements is not enough; there must be intent to deceive.
Knowledge and use – The person must know the document is forged if they intend to use it.
3. Types of Forgery Offenses
a) Making a False Document
Section 463 IPC covers general forgery.
Section 464 IPC elaborates making a false document for cheating or fraud.
Case Law Examples:
1) Emperor v. Keshav (1926)
Facts: Accused altered a promissory note to increase the amount payable.
Holding: Court held that altering a document with intent to cheat constitutes forgery. Intent to defraud is the key element.
2) R v. Hall (1836, UK)
Facts: Defendant forged a legal deed to gain property rights.
Holding: Forgery does not require that the victim actually suffers loss; creating a false document with intent to defraud is sufficient.
b) Using a Forged Document
Section 471 IPC criminalizes using a document known to be forged for gain or to cause damage.
Case Law Examples:
3) State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Sadashiv Rao (1964)
Facts: Accused used forged property sale deeds to claim ownership.
Holding: Supreme Court held that knowledge of forgery is enough, even if actual harm had not yet occurred.
4) Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1961)
Facts: Forged signatures on cheques used in bank transactions.
Holding: Using a forged document knowingly is punishable, irrespective of whether the transaction succeeds.
c) Cheating by Forgery
Section 465 IPC: Forgery committed with intent to cheat.
Section 420 IPC often overlaps if cheating involves dishonesty.
Case Law Examples:
5) State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (1968)
Facts: Accused issued forged bank drafts to claim money.
Holding: Court emphasized the dual requirement: forging the document and using it to cheat. Both must be proven.
6) Union of India v. S.N. Sharma (1970)
Facts: Forged railway receipts were used to claim goods fraudulently.
Holding: Held that intent to cheat combined with document falsification constitutes “cheating by forgery” under Sections 463–465 IPC.
d) Counterfeiting and Government Documents
Sections 468–471 IPC: Focus on forgery for fraudulent purposes, including official documents, currency notes, or public records.
Case Law Examples:
7) State v. K.V. Raju (1985, India)
Facts: Accused forged land revenue receipts to evade taxes.
Holding: Forging government documents is considered more serious; heavy sentences may apply.
8) R v. Blomfield (1851, UK)
Facts: Forged official court document submitted in legal proceedings.
Holding: Forgery of public or official documents carries higher culpability; intent to defraud public authorities established liability.
e) Falsification of Accounts
Section 477A IPC: Specifically targets falsifying accounts to defraud or conceal losses.
Case Law Examples:
9) Union of India v. R. K. Agarwal (1974)
Facts: Accused falsified company accounts to show higher profits and claim bonuses.
Holding: The Court held that falsification of accounts with intent to deceive auditors or stakeholders amounts to forgery.
10) Central Bank of India v. Ramesh Chand (1979)
Facts: Bank manager altered financial records to embezzle funds.
Holding: Falsifying books and using them for personal gain constitutes forgery under Section 477A IPC.
4. Key Legal Principles
Intent is critical: A document is not “forged” unless the accused intends to deceive or defraud.
Knowledge matters: Using a document knowing it is forged is a separate offense.
Public vs private documents: Forgery of government or public documents attracts harsher penalties than private documents.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient: Courts often rely on circumstantial proof (signatures, handwriting, witnesses).
5. Summary Table
| Offense Type | IPC Section | Essential Elements | Key Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forging a document | 463, 464 | False document + intent to defraud | Emperor v. Keshav (1926) |
| Using a forged document | 471 | Knowledge + use of forged document | State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Rao |
| Cheating by forgery | 465 | Forgery + intent to cheat | State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh |
| Government/public document forgery | 468–471 | Forging official/public documents | State v. K.V. Raju (1985) |
| Falsification of accounts | 477A | Falsifying records to cheat or conceal losses | Union of India v. R.K. Agarwal |
RELATED Blog
comments