Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine
Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine. A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or electronic record. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or electronic record.
(2) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
Section 340, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 470 Forged document Close, with changes 81%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. | Punishment for forgery of such document. | 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.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document; cited as basis for FIR registration
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document. Applied to convict appellants for fabricating false FIR.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document - applied to convict for fabricating false FIR
-
D. P Gulati, Mngr. Acct. M/s Jetking Infotra vs The State of U. P & ANR
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When criminal proceedings are initiated as a counter-blast or retaliatory measure to pressure a party who has filed a prior legitimate criminal complaint against the initiator, such proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC, particularly when the allegations appear frivolous and the sequential filing pattern demonstrates harassment rather than genuine prosecution.
On this section: Alleged offence of using forged documents; cited as one of the charges that was applied in context of the complaint.
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Using forged documents as genuine - applied to presentation of forged shipping bills to customs authorities
-
Satish Mehra vs State of N. C. T. of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, 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: Using as genuine a forged document - applied to charges against S.K. Khosla for using the forged Investment Renewal Form to obtain unauthorized renewal of the FD.
-
T. Nagarajan vs State Of Goa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, 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: Using Forged Document - Discharged By High Court
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, 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: Using as genuine a forged document; charged but found not applicable due to absence of forgery
-
N. K. Prasada vs Govt. of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, 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: Using as genuine document which is forged
-
Akanksha Pandey vs State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has undergone a substantial period of pre-trial incarceration (in this case, 2.5 years), the Supreme Court may exercise its discretionary powers to grant bail on grounds of extended imprisonment, notwithstanding the seriousness of charges and prior rejection by the High Court, if the totality of facts and circumstances warrants such relief.
On this section: Charge of using as genuine a forged document against the accused
-
Ashok Sandeep Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over one year) and the High Court has continuously adjourned bail proceedings without substantive hearing, while a stay on further proceedings has already been granted by the Supreme Court, interim bail should be granted pending final hearing of the Special Leave Petition, with terms and conditions to be imposed by the competent court.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document - using forged appointment documents as genuine
-
Ram Babu vs State of M. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power of a High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised extremely sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The court cannot quash proceedings merely on a belief that they constitute an abuse of process without examining whether the allegations in the complaint, taken as they are without addition or subtraction, disclose cognizable offences under the applicable law. The court should not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations when deciding whether to quash proceedings, as such enquiry is impermissible at the threshold stage of cognizance. The extraordinary inherent powers of the court do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to whim or caprice, and therefore the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate without examining the complaint and supporting materials.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document - applied to allegation of using forged document in newspapers and for prize claim
-
C.K. Vinod v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2023-08-09 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.Rev.Pet 44/2016. A. Badharudeen J. Isolates IPC 471: recites 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and upholds concurrent 465/471 convictions because the 1st accused issued the 2nd accused’s cheque after putting a forged signature, and they used that forged cheque as genuine (returned 'drawer’s signature differs'). Sentence modified; conviction stands. Map ipc 471 cited + bns 340 successor (decided_under ipc 471). Do not pad 465 (463/464 already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 471 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8543). The forged-cheque-as-genuine holding carries to BNS 340.
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Using as genuine a forged document - charge against petitioners
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, 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: Using as genuine a forged document charges
-
Amit Chandrawanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 471, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2019-09-12 DATE VERIFIED. CRR 1025/2018. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava J. Isolates IPC 467 vs 471 on a forged experience certificate: 467/468 are discharged because the petitioner did not make the document (Sheila Sebastian: forgery cannot lie against a non-maker) and an experience certificate is not a valuable security/will for 467; 471 (using as genuine) is retained with 420/511. Map ipc 467 cited + ipc 471 cited + bns 338 successor (decided_under ipc 467) + bns 340 successor (decided_under ipc 471). Do not pad 420/468/463/464 (463/464 already filled by Sheila Sebastian).
On this section: Successor of IPC 471 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8543). The using-as-genuine holding carries to BNS 340.
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 340
What have the courts held on Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 471, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Using as genuine a forged document; cited as basis for FIR registration. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
Is Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 340 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 340 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 340, section 340 BNS, section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 340(2) and bns 340 in hindi punishment. 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 Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 470 (Forged document), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 340, 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.