Forgery of valuable security, will, etc
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, m 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1 *[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 467, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 338 Forgery of valuable security, will, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- s. 472 Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable under section 467
- s. 473 Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise
- s. 474 Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine
- s. 475 Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material
- s. 476 Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents other than those described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material
- 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.
-
Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a special statute like the Legal Metrology Act 2009 contains a non obstante clause and exclusionary provision (Section 51), it excludes only those provisions of the general statute (IPC) which specifically relate to the subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute which are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even when the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute. The exclusion applies only to Chapter XIII IPC (Sections 264-267) relating to weights and measures, not to offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or common intention which are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act 2009. An accused can be prosecuted under either or both statutes but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
On this section: Forgery offences; held to be prosecutable as not covered by Legal Metrology Act 2009
-
Punjab State Warehousing CORP vs Bhushan Chander
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available to employees of Government companies or public undertakings (even when such undertakings are 'State' within Article 12 of Constitution) for prosecution of offences. Furthermore, offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 409), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471) and cheating (Section 420) committed by a public servant cannot reasonably be claimed to be done in discharge of official duty; rather, the official position merely provides the opportunity for commission. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only when there is a reasonable connection between the criminal act and the discharge of official duty, or when the act can be done under colour of office. Acts directly and reasonably disconnected from official duty do not attract Section 197 protection.
On this section: Forgery and using as genuine forged documents - offences charged in this case; court held these by nature cannot be regarded as committed in discharge of official duty, though analyzed in context of being interlinked with Section 409
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Applied in early FIR No. 38 for forgery charges based on alleged false fax message regarding which Jassi subsequently clarified was forged by her family
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Cited in initial false FIR for forgery and criminal intimidation; closure ordered after investigation found the charges to be false.
-
D. P Gulati, Mngr. Acct. M/s Jetking Infotra vs The State of U. P & ANR
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 forgery of valuable security; cited as one of the charges that appeared frivolous in context of commercial dispute.
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
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: Forgery - applied to forging of shipping bills and GR forms
-
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant holds multiple offices and is accused of abuse of one office, sanction for prosecution is mandatory only from the authority competent to remove him from that specific office which he is alleged to have misused. If the public servant has relinquished the office allegedly abused before charge sheet is filed, no sanction is required at all, despite his continuing to hold other public offices. The requirement of sanction serves to prevent frivolous prosecutions of the specific office abused; once that office is relinquished, the protection becomes inapplicable. To require sanction from authorities controlling other unrelated offices held simultaneously would pervert the legislative intent and convert the sanction requirement into a rogue's charter enabling evasion of prosecution.
On this section: Cited in FIR for alleged fraudulent documentation of ICD transactions
-
Satish Mehra vs State of N. C. T. of Delhi
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: Forgery of valuable security - applied to charges against S.K. Khosla for forging the Investment Renewal Form related to the Vyasa Bank FD.
-
Rishipal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC constitutes pure abuse of process of law and warrants quashing of the complaint case, as the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish any criminal offence - at most they disclose negligence or dereliction of official duty, not criminal conspiracy or cheating. The power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings must be exercised when a trained judicial mind concludes that continuation would lead to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, even though such exercise is an exception rather than the rule. Courts must actively prevent vexatious complaints filed by frustrated litigants seeking to misuse criminal law as a tool to settle civil disputes and to harass innocent third parties.
On this section: Forgery of valuable security. Charged in relation to misuse of signed cheques.
-
Akanksha Pandey vs State of Chhattisgarh
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 forgery of valuable security, government security, or currency note against the accused
-
Ashok Sandeep Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
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: Forgery of valuable security - making false documents for appointment
-
Ram Babu vs State of M. P.
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: Forgery of valuable security - applied to allegation of forging and falsifying the model photos and authorship
-
Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants in criminal cases involving embezzlement and breach of trust have made full financial restitution, deposited the entire misappropriated amount before the court, paid fines imposed, and are advanced in age with health concerns, the appellate court has discretion to modify sentences by reducing imprisonment to the period already undergone while upholding the conviction. The restitution deposit shall be treated as compensation to the victim under Section 357 Cr.P.C. This approach balances criminal accountability, victim compensation, and humanitarian considerations in sentencing for financial crimes.
On this section: Applied to establish that appellants forged crucial loan documents and falsified bank accounts to facilitate and conceal the embezzlement. The forged documents were instrumental in the commission of the embezzlement offence.
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
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: Forgery of valuable security - charge against petitioners
-
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 of valuable security charges
-
Marathappa Radhakrishna Shet vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused convicted of financial crimes such as embezzlement and forgery has made full restitution of the embezzled amount and compensated the injured party, and when the accused are elderly persons in deteriorating health, appellate courts may reduce the custodial sentence to the period already undergone by considering the totality of circumstances, while ensuring that the compensation is released to the injured party and such release does not prejudice the accused in other pending cases.
On this section: Forgery of valuable security or will - applied for forging bank documents to facilitate embezzlement
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.
-
… In the present case insofar as the offences under Section 193 and 196 IPC are concerned, the same relate to the execution proceedings because it is in the said proceedings that the false and fabricated decree has been produced, Whereas insofar as the offences under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same have been committed in connection with the record of the Special Civil Suit. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the record of the Special Civil Suit is also a proceeding within the meaning of the expression "proceeding, therefore, even …
-
… the petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C.") filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, was allowed and the First Information Report ("FIR") No. 94/2022 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi ("subject FIR" or "FIR") for offences punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"), was quashed against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, Delhi High Court, was justified in quashing the …
-
… The PMLA came into effect on 1st July 2005, and various predicate offences were incorporated into its schedule on different dates. Initially, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not included as scheduled offences under the PMLA. Section 467 IPC was originally part of the PMLA schedule (Part B), but only if the total value involved in such offences was thirty lakh rupees or more. Later, Section 420 IPC was added to Part B of the PMLA schedule on 1st June 2009, with a similar monetary threshold. Similarly, Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act …
Questions about Section 467
What have the courts held on Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code?
Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (04 Sep 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Forgery offences; held to be prosecutable as not covered by Legal Metrology Act 2009. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 467 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 467, section 467 IPC, section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 467 468 and 471 and ipc 467 in bns. 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 Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (04 Sep 2019).
What should I read with Section 467 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 338 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 467, 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.