Sections 463-474 IPC vs Sections 335-341 BNS — Forgery, False Documents and Counterfeit Seals

In India, forgery offences committed from 1 July 2024 fall under Sections 335 to 341 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replace IPC Sections 463 to 474. Every carried-over punishment is unchanged. Section 337 now names Aadhaar and voter identity cards, and Section 341(3)–(4) newly punish possessing or using a counterfeit seal.

At a glance

Each carried-over row matches the CrPC First Schedule entry for its IPC predecessor. IPC ss.475–477A continue as BNS ss.342–344 and are outside this page.

What changed

• Identical — Definition of forgery, s.463 → s.336(1).
• Minor edit — s.464 → s.335. The three heads "First", "Secondly", "Thirdly" become "(A)", "(B)", "(C)", and clauses (a)–(d) become (i)–(iv). The misprint "singed" in the IPC text we hold becomes "signed", and "fictious" becomes "fictitious". Explanations 1–3 and all Illustrations are carried over; Illustration (i) reads "a different legatee from the legatee named by Z" where the IPC text we hold reads "a different legatee named by Z".
• Identical — Punishments of ss.465, 468 and 469, now s.336(2)–(4): two years, seven years and three years respectively.
• Expanded — s.466 → s.337. New words: "or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card".
• Minor edit — s.466 → s.337: "a Court of Justice" → "a Court"; "a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial" → "a register of birth, marriage or burial".
• Identical — s.467 → s.338, including "an authority to adopt a son".
• Minor edit — s.474 → s.339: cross-references "section 466"/"section 467" become "section 337"/"section 338".
• Minor edit — ss.470–471 → s.340(1)–(2); quotation marks dropped.
• Minor edit — ss.472–473 → s.341(1)–(2): cross-references "section 467 of this Code" become "section 338 of this Sanhita"; the operative words are otherwise the same.
• New — s.341(3): possession of a seal, plate or instrument "knowing the same to be counterfeit", with no intent to commit forgery required; up to three years and fine.
• New — s.341(4): fraudulently or dishonestly using such an instrument as genuine, "knowing or having reason to believe" it counterfeit; punished as if the user had made it.
• Expanded (definition) — "Document" in BNS s.2(8) now "includes electronic and digital record"; IPC s.29 did not, and relied on s.29A and the Chapter's own words for electronic records.
• Identical — Not compoundable: no forgery offence appears in BNSS s.359 or CrPC s.320.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

BNS s.336(1) (Gazette text; identical to IPC s.463)

Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

BNS s.337 (Gazette text, extract; IPC s.466 read "a Court of Justice" and "birth, baptism, marriage or burial")

Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, …

BNS s.341(3)–(4) (Gazette text)

(3) Whoever possesses any seal, plate or other instrument knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(4) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any seal, plate or other instrument knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had made or counterfeited such seal, plate or other instrument.

How it works — ingredients

Step 1 — a false document (s.335). A person makes a false document or false electronic record in one of three ways:

• (A) dishonestly or fraudulently making, signing, sealing or executing a document, or making or transmitting an electronic record, or affixing an electronic signature, intending it to be believed that it was made by, or by the authority of, a person who he knows did not make or authorise it;
• (B) dishonestly or fraudulently altering a document or electronic record in a material part, without lawful authority, after it was made;
• (C) dishonestly or fraudulently causing a person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that, through unsoundness of mind, intoxication or deception, that person does not know its contents or the nature of the alteration.

Explanation 1: signing one's own name may be forgery. Explanation 2: a document in the name of a fictitious person, or of a dead person as if signed in his lifetime, may be forgery.

Step 2 — forgery (s.336(1)). The false document must be made with one of the listed intents: to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, to support a claim or title, to cause a person to part with property or to enter into a contract, or to commit fraud.

Step 3 — the aggravated forms. The purpose or the document fixes the punishment: cheating (s.336(3)), reputation (s.336(4)), court or public records and Government identity documents (s.337), valuable securities and wills (s.338).

Step 4 — use and possession. Using a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it forged, is punished as forgery of that document (s.340(2)). Possessing a forged s.337 or s.338 document, knowing it forged and intending it to be used as genuine, is punished under s.339.

Worked examples from the Act's illustrations to s.335:

• (c) A fraudulently fills in ten thousand rupees on a signed blank bearer cheque he picked up: forgery (head (A)).
• (f) A dishonestly scratches B's name out of Z's will: forgery (head (B)).
• (i) Z dictates his will; A writes down a different legatee and, by saying it follows Z's instructions, gets Z to sign. A has committed forgery (head (C)).
• Explanation 1, (d) B antedates a lease of his seized estate. He commits forgery "by antedating it", though he signs his own name.

What this means in practice

For a person whose document was forged. Forgery for cheating (s.336(3)), harming reputation (s.336(4)), use of a forged document (s.340(2)) and all of s.341 are cognizable, so an FIR can be registered under BNSS s.173. Simple forgery (s.336(2)) and forgery of court or public records, identity documents (s.337) and valuable securities or wills (s.338) are non-cognizable. For these the police refer the informant to the Magistrate (s.174(1)) and cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order (s.174(2)). Where one offence in a case is cognizable, such as s.336(3) or s.340(2), the whole case is treated as cognizable (s.174(4)).

Where the document is already in court. BNSS s.215(1)(b)(ii) bars cognizance of an offence described in s.336(1), or punishable under s.340(2) or s.342, committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a court, except on the written complaint of that court, of an officer it authorises in writing, or of a court to which it is subordinate. Iqbal Singh Marwah (below) confines the equivalent CrPC bar to offences committed after production. The words of s.215(1)(b)(ii) track CrPC s.195(1)(b)(ii), so on a reading of the text that limit carries over.

For the accused. Bailable limbs carry bail as of right (BNSS s.478); for ss.336(3), 337 and 338 it is discretionary (s.480). Forgery cannot be compounded (s.359(9)).

For investigating officers and advocates. Prove who made the document, not only who benefited (Sheila Sebastian). Handwriting and fingerprint comparison is expert evidence under BSA s.39. For a disputed sale deed, first ask whether the deed is "false" in the s.335 sense at all (Md. Ibrahim). For s.341(3), the prosecution must still prove knowledge that the instrument is counterfeit; only the intent to forge is no longer required.

Time limit. BNSS s.514(2)(c) bars cognizance after three years for ss.336(2), 336(4) and 341(3). Section 340(2) is punished as forgery of the document used, so on a reading of the text its period follows that punishment (three years where the document's forgery falls under s.336(2)). Sections 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 341(1)–(2) and 341(4) carry more than three years and have no bar under s.514.

Judgments that still matter

BNS ss.335, 336(1) and 340 repeat the operative words of IPC ss.464, 463 and 470–471, so on a reading of the text judgments on those words remain relevant. No judgment applying BNS ss.335–341 was read.

Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 585 — decided 29 November 1962; the judgment text names S.J. Imam, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J.R. Mudholkar JJ, and the judgment is by Subba Rao J. On the meaning of "fraudulently" in s.464, the Court held that to "defraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury, and that injury includes non-economic harm to body, mind or reputation. A benefit to the deceiver without corresponding loss is enough. Dr. Vimla signed insurance papers and claim receipts in her infant daughter's name; the deceit secured her no advantage and caused the insurer no injury. She was held not guilty under ss.467 and 468. Why it matters: BNS s.2(9) restates the IPC s.25 definition of "fraudulently" ("with the intention to defraud but not otherwise"), and s.335 keeps the word, so the two-element test carries over on a reading of the text.

Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 708 (2005 INSC 129) — decided 11 March 2005 by a five-judge Bench (R.C. Lahoti CJ and B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan JJ), to which the case was referred because two three-judge decisions conflicted; judgment by Mathur J. The Court held that CrPC s.195(1)(b)(ii) "would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis" (para 25). A will allegedly forged before it was filed in a probate court could be prosecuted on a private complaint (para 26). Why it matters: it decides whether a forgery victim must ask the civil court to complain under BNSS s.215 or may go straight to the police or Magistrate.

Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1254 — decided 4 September 2009 by R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha JJ; judgment by Raveendran J. The Court divided s.464 false documents into three categories: impersonation or false authority; unauthorised alteration; and a signature obtained by deception or from a person not in control of his senses (paras 10–11). A person who executes a sale deed claiming the property as his own "is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else". The deed is therefore not a false document, and without a false document there is no forgery and no offence under ss.467 or 471 (para 12). Why it matters: s.335 keeps the three heads word for word.

Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, [2018] 4 S.C.R. 439 (2018 INSC 494) — decided 11 May 2018 by N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer JJ; judgment by Ramana J. An impostor posing as the owner executed a power of attorney in the accused's favour, and the accused then mortgaged the property. The Court held that "a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same" (para 25), and that s.464 "makes it clear that only the one who makes a false document can be held liable" (para 29). The acquittal was upheld. Why it matters: s.335 keeps the "maker" structure, so the case shows why charges should also plead use (s.340(2)) and cheating (s.318) where the facts support them.

Which law applies to your case

BNS s.358(2) keeps penalties and proceedings for offences committed against the IPC alive "as if that Code had not been repealed". Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars conviction except for violating a law in force at the time of the act. On a reading of those provisions, forgery committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under IPC ss.463–474. The new words of s.337 and s.341(3)–(4) cannot reach earlier conduct. BNSS s.531(2)(a) keeps matters pending on that date under the CrPC. See Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 467 and Section 471 IPC? Section 467 IPC (forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to adopt) is now Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the same punishment of imprisonment for life, or up to ten years, and fine. Section 471 IPC (using a forged document as genuine) is now Section 340(2) BNS, punishable in the same manner as if the user had forged the document.

Is forging an Aadhaar card or voter ID a specific offence under the BNS? Yes. Section 337 BNS covers forging a document or electronic record purporting to be 'an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card', with up to seven years' imprisonment and fine. Section 466 IPC, its predecessor, did not mention identity documents. Possessing such a forged document, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine, is punishable under Section 339.

Is it an offence just to possess a counterfeit seal under the BNS? Yes. Section 341(3) BNS punishes whoever possesses any seal, plate or other instrument knowing it to be counterfeit, with up to three years and fine. Under IPC Sections 472 and 473, now Section 341(1)-(2), possession was punishable only with the intent that the instrument be used to commit forgery. Section 341(4) separately punishes using such an instrument as genuine.

Is forgery bailable? It depends on the sub-section. Under the BNSS First Schedule, Section 336(2) and 336(4), Section 340(2) and all of Section 341 are bailable; Sections 336(3), 337 and 338 are non-bailable. Section 339 is bailable in both of its limbs. Every forgery offence is triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Can a forgery case be compromised? No. None of the forgery offences in BNS Sections 336 to 341 appears in either compounding table in BNSS Section 359, and Section 359(9) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section. The same was true of IPC Sections 463 to 474 under CrPC Section 320.

Is selling property you do not own a forgery? Not by itself. In Md. Ibrahim (2009) the Supreme Court held that a person who executes a sale deed describing property as his own is not claiming to be someone else or to act on someone else's authority, so the deed is not a false document under IPC Section 464, now BNS Section 335. A purchaser who was deceived may still have a case of cheating.

Can a person be convicted of forgery if someone else signed the forged document? Not of forgery itself. In Sheila Sebastian (2018) the Supreme Court held that only the maker of a false document can be convicted of forgery, because making a document is different from causing it to be made. Using the forged document as genuine is a separate offence, now BNS Section 340(2).

When does a court have to file the complaint for forgery of a document? BNSS Section 215(1)(b)(ii) bars cognizance of offences under Sections 336(1), 340(2) and 342 BNS committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in court, except on the complaint of that court. In Iqbal Singh Marwah (2005), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the equivalent CrPC bar applies only where the offence was committed after the document was produced in court.

Related

• Sections 415-420 IPC vs Sections 318-319 BNS — cheating
• Section 45 IEA vs BSA — expert opinion
• Proving documents, photocopies and secondary evidence — BSA 56-64 vs IEA 61-66
• Limitation for taking cognizance — CrPC 468-473 vs BNSS
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Sections 489A–489E IPC vs Sections 178–182 BNS — Counterfeit Currency-Notes and Bank-Notes
• Sections 195, 198 and 198A CrPC vs Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS — Restrictions on Prosecution: Complaint by Public Servant, Court or Person Aggrieved

Sources

Acts and sections read (primary text):

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250883): ss.2(8), 2(9), 335–341, 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original text): ss.29, 29A, 463–474.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: ss.173, 174, 215, 359, 478, 480, 514, 531(2)(a); First Schedule entries for BNS ss.336–341.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.195, 320; First Schedule entries for IPC ss.465–474.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: s.39. Constitution of India: Article 20(1).

Judgments read (Supreme Court, judgment text):

• Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 585 — corpus file S_1963_2_585_600_EN.md.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 708 — corpus file 2005_2_708_732_EN.md.
• Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1254 — corpus file 2009_13_1254_1270_EN.md.
• Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, [2018] 4 S.C.R. 439 — corpus file 2018_4_439_451_EN.md.

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.