Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc
Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. Whoever forges a document, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 forges a document, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 466, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 337 Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 9
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- s. 474 Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine
- Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act s. 28 Disqualification of membership etc. of committees
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.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
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: Forgery of record - applied in conjunction with Section 471
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
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: Forgery of valuable security; cited as basis for FIR registration
-
Suvarna Vijayrao Raskar vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Fraud vitiates all orders including those that have attained finality. When a State Government, after examining representations from original landowners and relying on criminal convictions proving fraudulent fabrication of revenue records and manipulation of land ceiling proceedings, exercises its executive power under Article 162 to appoint an Enquiry Officer to investigate the fraud in the larger public interest, such administrative enquiry is not barred by statutory limitation periods or finality of prior orders. An administrative enquiry directing investigation is not an adverse order requiring prior notice and hearing, and constitutional property rights are not immediately affected at the investigative stage. The doctrine that 'fraud unravels everything' operates as exception to statutory limitations and principles of finality in administrative law, particularly when the fraud involves massive wrongful appropriation of agricultural land and violation of landholding ceiling laws.
On this section: Offences of forgery, fabrication of documents, conspiracy and abetment; shareholders were convicted under these sections for fabricating revenue records; Court relied on criminal convictions to establish fraud
-
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
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: Forgery - Applied to forging hospital admission records and bed head tickets by altering genuine documents to create false medical evidence.
-
Jasbir Kaur vs State of Haryana
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 forgery - conviction upheld for forging hospital documents including admission slips and bed head tickets
-
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar (d) by Lrs vs State of Maharashtra & ORS
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The doctrine that fraud unravels everything operates to negate the bar of limitation prescribed under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, allowing the State Government to reopen finalized land ceiling proceedings and conduct administrative enquiry into allegations of fabricated revenue records and false sub-leases created to circumvent land ceiling limits. The appointment of an Enquiry Officer to investigate alleged fraud in revenue records is administrative in nature and does not directly affect substantive rights of affected parties at the stage of enquiry initiation, and therefore does not require prior notice and opportunity of hearing. The State Government's executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution extends to conducting such enquiries in matters of larger public interest involving allegations of substantial fraud affecting both the State and original landowners.
On this section: Criminal offences for forgery, fabrication of documents, and conspiracy; charges against which shareholders and others were convicted in criminal proceedings linked to revenue record manipulation
-
Balwinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
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: Forgery; applied to the act of forging hospital admission and medical records
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 466
What have the courts held on Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code?
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha (11 Feb 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Forgery of record - applied in conjunction with Section 471. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 466 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 466, section 466 IPC, section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 466 punishment and ipc 466 is bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha (11 Feb 2021).
What should I read with Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 337 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 466, 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.