Forgery
Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with forgery. 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 contr The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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.
(2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 336, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 463 Forgery Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forgery. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Forgery for the purpose of cheating. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of any person or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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 463, 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 463 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The forgery-by-maker-only holding carries to BNS 336.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Offences alleged in second and third complaints for criminal conspiracy, forgery, and under-valuation of property; Court considered whether allegations remotely made out cognizable offence
-
Mauvin Godinho vs State Of Goa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The standard for framing charges under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the prima facie standard, where the probative value of evidence on all essential elements of the charge taken as a whole must be sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such elements or to consider their existence probable. At this stage, the court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh evidence as if conducting a trial. When material on record shows that policy notifications were issued without required Cabinet approval and the sequence of notifications could reasonably suggest an intent to benefit specific entities, sufficient prima facie material exists to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act even if earlier civil litigation addressed the same notifications from a different legal angle.
On this section: Forgery and related offences. Originally charged but discharged by High Court.
-
T. Nagarajan vs State Of Goa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Court Frames Charges Under Section 227 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, It Must Apply The Prima Facie Standard, Whereby The Probative Value Of Evidence On All Essential Elements Must Be Sufficient To Induce The Court To Believe In The Existence Of The Facts Pertaining To Those Essential Elements Or Consider Their Existence So Probable That A Prudent Man Ought To Act Upon The Supposition That Those Facts Existed. At This Stage, There Cannot Be A Roving Enquiry Into The Pros And Cons Of The Matter Or Weighing Of Evidence As If Conducting A Trial. Where Material On Record Obligates The Court To Frame Charges And Prima Facie A Case Can Be Made Out Against The Accused, The Court Should Frame Charges Without Conducting A Thorough Examination Of Merits.
On this section: Forgery - Discharged By High Court
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Decided under Indian Penal Code 463, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of forgery and fraud are made on the basis of website content that clearly identifies a company division's connection to its parent company through visible links and shared addresses, and when no fraudulent intent can be inferred, no deceptive transactions occurred, and no person was induced to part with property or enter contracts based on such representation, the criminal allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence under Sections 463, 468, or 471 IPC or Sections 65-66 IT Act 2000. Such criminal proceedings initiated as part of a private corporate dispute constitute abuse of court process and must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice.
On this section: Defines forgery with requirement of intent to cause damage, injury, or commit fraud; court found none of these elements present
-
N. K. Prasada vs Govt. of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a party with proper notice of proceedings chooses not to appear and participate in proceedings, including not cross-examining witnesses, they cannot later claim violation of principles of natural justice. The burden lies on the party to demonstrate both absence of proper notice and serious prejudice arising therefrom. Further, the Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 when the appellant has abused the process of court or engaged in fraud. The PIL mechanism, while intended for public interest, cannot be allowed to serve as a destructive weapon against legitimate government orders or decisions, and courts must exercise self-restraint in recognizing and preventing such abuse.
On this section: Forgery of documents and signatures
-
Bishan Dass vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC require not merely the issuance of a false document or certificate by a public servant, but specifically require proof of dishonest intention and mens rea to cause wrongful gain for himself or wrongful loss to another. The mere fact that a false certificate was issued, which resulted in some unintended consequence such as land allotment, does not suffice to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is clear evidence of the accused's dishonest intention at the time of making the false statement or inducement. In contradistinction, Section 177 IPC, which deals with giving false information, requires only that a person legally bound to furnish information to a public servant furnishes as true information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false.
On this section: Trial court convicted on these sections, but appellate court set aside these convictions. Supreme Court did not disturb the appellate court's decision on these sections.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-applicability of the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to controlled substances does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The court can refuse bail if there is seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic substances, existence of incriminating material, and likelihood of non-availability during trial, particularly in cases involving trans-border drug trafficking operations.
On this section: Forgery and criminal breach of trust. Petitioners charged under these sections for misbranding and fake labeling of tablets.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs Union Of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even though Section 37 of the NDPS Act (twin test for bail) may not strictly apply to controlled substances as opposed to narcotic drugs, the non-applicability of this section does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Courts retain discretion to refuse bail in controlled substance cases based on: (1) seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic drugs, (2) presence of incriminating material establishing active participation in drug trafficking, (3) likelihood of accused absconding or becoming unavailable for trial, particularly when accused are non-residents of the trial jurisdiction, and (4) transnational/international aspects of the drug trafficking operation. The burden remains on the accused to satisfy the court that bail should be granted, and in cases involving serious drug trafficking with international linkage, courts should exercise caution in granting bail.
On this section: Forgery. Applied to charges against accused for creating fake labels on pharmaceutical packets.
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 463, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deponent in a judicial proceeding, particularly a police officer who is a party to the suit, is fully aware that disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed in connection with the very incident that is subject matter of the suit are highly relevant to the case, and such deponent deliberately denies the existence of such punishment when specifically questioned during cross-examination, knowing such denial to be false, a prima facie case is made out for investigating alleged false evidence under Section 193 IPC. It is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC in such circumstances, as the false evidence goes to the credibility and integrity of the witness and the administration of justice itself.
On this section: Forgery and related offences; cited in context of Section 195 CrPC jurisdiction
-
Nar Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 463, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, which restricts prosecution of forgery and related offences, applies only when such offences are committed in relation to proceedings in a court or when documents are forged after being given in custodia legis (court custody). When forged documents are created before being filed in court, Section 195(1)(b) does not apply, and a Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offences without requiring the restrictions prescribed under Section 195 CrPC.
On this section: Forgery - subject of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC restriction
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Forgery charges
-
Devendra Ramchandra Patil vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving allegations of cheating and forgery where there is substantial delay in lodging the FIR (approximately 7 years from the alleged incident), and where the applicants have cooperated with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation is not warranted in an anticipatory bail application. Furthermore, inter se disputes regarding the status of trustees and their authority cannot be examined in criminal proceedings under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and such disputes should be resolved through appropriate remedies under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
On this section: Forgery - cited as one of the charges relating to forged stamps
-
S.syed Basha vs The State of A.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 463, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Criminal Procedure Code applies only to offences under Sections 193-196, 199, 200, 205-211, and 228 IPC when committed in court proceedings, and to forgery offences under Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC when committed in respect of documents in court proceedings. Impersonation under Section 419 IPC is not covered by this bar. Therefore, a Magistrate has the authority to try and convict a person for impersonation under Section 419 IPC even when committed in relation to court proceedings. The restrictions under Section 352 CrPC do not apply to Section 419 IPC offences once the Section 195 bar is found inapplicable.
On this section: Forgery and document-related offences - Subject to Section 195 CrPC bar when committed in respect of documents in court proceedings
-
Ram Bhaj vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While The Conviction Of An Accused Under Section 465 IPC For Forging Pollution Certificates Must Be Upheld If Supported By Cogent And Convincing Evidence, The Court Possesses Discretionary Authority To Suspend The Remaining Imprisonment Sentence When The Accused Has Already Endured Prolonged Litigation Spanning Nearly Two Decades, Is A First-Time Offender, Serves As The Sole Breadwinner For Aged Parents And Minor Children, And Has Already Undergone Partial Imprisonment. In Such Circumstances, The Ends Of Justice Are Adequately Served By Maintaining The Conviction And Fine While Suspending The Remaining Imprisonment, As Continued Incarceration Would Serve No Useful Purpose.
On this section: Punishment For Forgery - The Appellate Court Convicted The Petitioner Under This Lesser Offence For Forging Pollution Certificates, Which Was Upheld By The High Court
-
Vijaykumar Madanmohan Bhalla vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 465, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the preliminary stage of criminal proceedings, allegations of forgery cannot be quashed merely because the underlying transaction is commercial or civil in nature, or because a tax authority has accepted a reduced amount. The court must allow the prosecution an opportunity to establish the offence alleged, and the decision of the Income Tax authority regarding tax liability has no bearing on criminal proceedings for forgery.
On this section: Forgery - Preparation of forged confirmation letter
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 336
What have the courts held on Section 336 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 463, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 463 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The forgery-by-maker-only holding carries to BNS 336. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
Is Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 3 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 336 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 336, section 336 BNS, section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 336 2 in hindi and bns 336 3 in marathi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 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 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 463 (Forgery), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 336, 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
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.