Forgery
Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with forgery. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever makes any false document or part of a document 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.
Section 463, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 336 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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
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: Forgery under s.463 is committed only by the maker of a false document as defined in s.464, not by a beneficiary of the forged instrument (Sheila Sebastian).
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
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
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
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
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
-
S.syed Basha vs The State of A.p.
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
-
Arvind Agrawal vs State of Rajasthan through P P
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: Forgery; 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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… the relevant time, was the Incharge Registrar, District Court, Bharuch, lodged a First Information Report (hereinafter, 'FIR') before the Bharuch City 'A' Division Police Station on 28th July, 2005 against the petitioner herein as well as two other accused persons alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 192, 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') which came to be registered vide I-C.R. No.170 of 2005. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that on 27th March, 2003, the petitioner herein had instituted Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003 …
-
… The Court put it thus (at pages 962-963): 17 "It is true that some of the ingredients of the act of fabricating false evidence which is penalised under Section 193 Indian Penal Code and of making a false document and thereby committing forgery within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code are common. A person by making a false entry in any book or record or by making any document containing a false statement may, if the prescribed conditions of Section 463 are fulfilled, commit an offence of forgery. But the important ingredient which constitutes fabrication of false …
Questions about Section 463
What have the courts held on Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (11 May 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Forgery under s.463 is committed only by the maker of a false document as defined in s.464, not by a beneficiary of the forged instrument (Sheila Sebastian). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 463, section 463 IPC, section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 463 in bns and ipc 463 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 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 463 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 336 (Forgery), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 463, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.