Having possession of document described in section 337 or section 338, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine
Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with having possession of document described in section 337 or section 338, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine. Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 337 of this Sanhita, be punished The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 337 of this Sanhita, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 338, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 339, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 474 Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Having possession of a document, knowing it to be forged, with intent to use it as genuine; if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 337. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If the document is one of the description mentioned in section 338. | Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Non-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.
-
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 474, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, particularly where charges rest on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion (such as forensic handwriting analysis), the court must distinguish between proof beyond reasonable doubt and mere suspicion or probability. While hospital records showing interpolations and missing pages may indicate tampering, and while one individual's (Dr. Ravinder Kaur's) direct involvement in issuing false admission slips may be established through credible witness testimony, the involvement of other staff members in a conspiracy to forge records cannot be inferred from handwriting matches alone without clinching evidence of their guilty mind and knowledge of the conspiracy. The standard of proof required in criminal law is significantly higher than establishing suspicion; each accused must be judged on individual evidence establishing their participation in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Further, charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requiring abuse of official position for illegal gratification cannot be sustained without explicit evidence of demand and acceptance of such gratification.
On this section: Using forged documents - Applied to using the forged hospital records as false evidence in the assault case to establish false alibi for Amar Nath.
-
Jasbir Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 474, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely a preponderance of probabilities. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be based on handwriting expert evidence alone without clinching corroborating evidence of guilty mind and direct participation in the criminal act. A public servant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of taking or obtaining pecuniary advantage or illicit benefit, which cannot be presumed without explicit evidence. Direct evidence of participation and guilty mind is essential to convict co-accused in conspiracy cases, especially where circumstantial evidence does not establish their individual culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Applied for using forged documents - conviction upheld for using forged hospital records as genuine evidence
-
Balwinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 474, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, not mere suspicion or preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt only when the circumstances are of clinching nature and directly point to guilt. Handwriting expert analysis has corroborative value but cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Each accused must have their individual culpability established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion arising from involvement in conspiracy does not warrant conviction. For conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pecuniary advantage is an essential ingredient and must be established. Inquiry reports containing hearsay evidence are not sufficient for conviction unless the persons whose version formed the basis of the inquiry are examined and cross-examined.
On this section: Having possession of forged document knowing it to be forged; applied to appellants handling forged hospital records
-
Sadhu Ram Gainda vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 474, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who has suffered nearly four years of judicial custody while awaiting trial, where the trial is progressing slowly with only a fraction of prosecution witnesses examined and is unlikely to conclude in the near future, may be granted bail notwithstanding serious charges and risk factors such as a co-accused being a proclaimed offender, provided stringent bail conditions are imposed to ensure appearance and prevent interference with the trial.
On this section: Charge of having possession of document knowing it to be forged
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 339
What have the courts held on Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana (18 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 474, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Using forged documents - Applied to using the forged hospital records as false evidence in the assault case to establish false alibi for Amar Nath. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2014.
Is Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
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 339 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 339, section 339 BNS, section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 339 in ipc and bns 339 3. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana (18 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 337 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc), section 338 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IPC 474 (Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 339, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.