Making a false document
Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with making a false document. A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- (A) Who dishonestly or fraudulently--- (i) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---
(A) Who dishonestly or fraudulently---
(i) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(ii) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(iii) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(iv) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
(B) Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
(C) Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Illustrations.
(a) A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000, written by Z. A, in order to defraud B, adds cipher to the 10,000, and makes the sum 1,00,000 intending that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.
(b) A, without Z’s authority, affixes Z’s seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling the estate to B and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase-money. A has committed forgery.
(c) A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any sum having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
(d) A leaves with B, his agent, a cheque on a banker, signed by A, without inserting the sum payable and authorises B to fill up the cheque by inserting a sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees for the purpose of making certain payments. B fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of twenty thousand rupees. B commits forgery.
(e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B without B’s authority, intending to discount it as a genuine bill with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity. Here, as A draws the bill with intent to deceive the banker by leading him to suppose that he had the security of B, and thereby to discount the bill, A is guilty of forgery.
(f) Z’s will contains these words—"I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided between A, B and C." A dishonestly scratches out B’s name, intending that it may be believed that the whole was left to himself and C. A has committed forgery.
(g) A endorses a Government promissory note and makes it payable to Z or his order by writing on the bill the words "Pay to Z or his order" and signing the endorsement. B dishonestly erases the words “Pay to Z or his order”, and thereby converts the special endorsement into a blank endorsement. B commits forgery.
(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estate, executes a conveyance of the same estate to B, dated six months earlier than the date of the conveyance to Z, intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery.
(i) Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee named by Z, and by representing to Z that he has prepared the will according to his instructions, induces Z to sign the will. A has committed forgery.
(j) A writes a letter and signs it with B’s name without B’s authority, certifying that A is a man of good character and in distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, as A made a false document in order to induce Z to part with property, A has committed forgery.
(k) A without B’s authority writes a letter and signs it in B’s name certifying to A’s character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. A has committed forgery in as much as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and thereby to induce Z to enter into an express or implied contract for service.
Explanation 1.—A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Illustrations.
(a) A signs his own name to a bill of exchange, intending that it may be believed that the bill was drawn by another person of the same name. A has committed forgery.
(b) A writes the word "accepted" on a piece of paper and signs it with Z’s name, in order that B may afterwards write on the paper a bill of exchange drawn by B upon Z, and negotiate the bill as though it had been accepted by Z. A is guilty of forgery; and if B, knowing the fact, draws the bill upon the paper pursuant to A’s intention, B is also guilty of forgery.
(c) A picks up a bill of exchange payable to the order of a different person of the same name. A endorses the bill in his own name, intending to cause it to be believed that it was endorsed by the person to whose order it was payable; here A has committed forgery.
(d) A purchases an estate sold under execution of a decree against B. B, after the seizure of the estate, in collusion with Z, executes a lease of the estate, to Z at a nominal rent and for a long period and dates the lease six months prior to the seizure, with intent to defraud A, and to cause it to be believed that the lease was granted before the seizure. B, though he executes the lease in his own name, commits forgery by antedating it.
(e) A, a trader, in anticipation of insolvency, lodges effects with B for A’s benefit, and with intent to defraud his creditors; and in order to give a colour to the transaction, writes a promissory note binding himself to pay to B a sum for value received, and antedates the note, intending that it may be believed to have been made before A was on the point of insolvency. A has committed forgery under the first head of the definition.
Explanation 2.—The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
Illustration.
A draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious person, and fraudulently accepts the bill in the name of such fictitious person with intent to negotiate it. A commits forgery.
Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "affixing electronic signature" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
Section 335, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 464 Making a false document Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj
Decided under Indian Penal Code 464, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-46.pdf 2018-05-11. Crl A 359-360/2010. Ramana/Nazeer. DATE-CHECK flagged 2008 HC / 1998 FIR / 2003 conviction (false positive); body is the named 11 May 2018 reportable. Only the maker of a false document under s.464 is guilty of forgery under 463/465; a beneficiary or impersonation-facilitator is not the maker. High Court acquittal of Jawaharaj/Rajapandi affirmed. Cites Md Ibrahim. Map ipc 464 and 463 + BNS successors. Do not pad 420 (filled) or 465 onto bns 336.
On this section: Successor of IPC 464 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9587). The maker-of-false-document holding carries to BNS 335.
-
Satish Mehra vs State of N. C. T. of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 464, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial cannot proceed on the basis of mere hope and expectation that evidence may emerge during trial. Criminal charges must be based on definite allegations prima facie establishing commission of an offence by the accused. Where no positive role of an accused is disclosed in the FIR, investigation materials, or charge sheet, and the identity of the person who authorized the alleged wrongful acts is unknown, holding the accused liable would be conjecture and not permissible in law. However, where materials on record prima facie disclose commission of an offence—such as where an accused makes endorsements on financial documents with intent to cause them to be believed as made by another person, and such documents are used to fraudulently alter account status—the High Court cannot quash charges merely because the evidence may not be conclusive, as that is the function of the trial judge.
On this section: Definition of forgery - making a document with intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by or by authority of a person by whom it was not made. Court applied this to analyze whether S.K. Khosla's endorsement on the Investment Renewal Form constituted forgery.
-
Arvind Agrawal vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 464, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is sought to be arrested after a considerable delay (five years) following FIR registration, and co-accused have already been granted bail, and the person is willing to cooperate with investigation, anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, subject to conditions ensuring investigation cooperation and prevention of evidence tampering.
On this section: Making a false document; alleged offence in the FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 335
What have the courts held on Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (11 May 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 464, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 464 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9587). The maker-of-false-document holding carries to BNS 335. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 335, section 335 BNS, section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 335 punishment in hindi and bns 335 336. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (11 May 2018).
What should I read with Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 464 (Making a false document), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 335, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
- 316. Criminal breach of trust856 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.