Punishment for forgery
Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for forgery. 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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.
Section 465, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 336 Forgery Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
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
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
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
-
N. K. Prasada vs Govt. of India
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
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.
-
Ram Bhaj vs State of Haryana
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
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
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
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.
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
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
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
-
Vijaykumar Madanmohan Bhalla vs The State of Maharashtra
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
-
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: Punishment for 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.
Questions about Section 465
What have the courts held on Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code?
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P. (19 Mar 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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. Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 465 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 465, section 465 IPC, section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 465 punishment and ipc 465 is bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P. (19 Mar 2015).
What should I read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers 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 465 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 465, 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.