Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine
Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine. Whoever has in his possession any document, knowing the same to be forged, and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code, be punished with imprisonment of either description for 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 has in his possession any document, knowing the same to be forged, and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 474, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 339 Having possession of document described in section 337 or section 338, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
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: Using forged documents - Applied to using the forged hospital records as false evidence in the assault case to establish false alibi for Amar Nath.
-
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 using forged documents - conviction upheld for using forged hospital records as genuine evidence
-
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: Having possession of forged document knowing it to be forged; applied to appellants handling forged hospital records
-
Sadhu Ram Gainda vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who has suffered nearly four years of judicial custody while awaiting trial, where the trial is progressing slowly with only a fraction of prosecution witnesses examined and is unlikely to conclude in the near future, may be granted bail notwithstanding serious charges and risk factors such as a co-accused being a proclaimed offender, provided stringent bail conditions are imposed to ensure appearance and prevent interference with the trial.
On this section: Charge of having possession of document knowing it to be forged
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.
-
… New Delhi in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 186, 353, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 216 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 <sup>2</sup> read with Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 420, 468, 471, 474 and 34, IPC. In the investigation, the involvement of the present review petitioner was made out. 3. The review petitioner, who was tried for said offences, was awarded death sentence vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case Nos. 1/2005, …
Questions about Section 474
What have the courts held on Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code?
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana (18 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Using forged documents - Applied to using the forged hospital records as false evidence in the assault case to establish false alibi for Amar Nath. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 474 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 474, section 474 IPC, section 474 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 474 punishment and ipc 474 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana (18 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 466 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc), section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 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 339 (Having possession of document described in section 337 or section 338, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 474, 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.