Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XVIII > Forgery of Record of Court or of Public Register, etc. (S. 337 BNS)
Forgery of records of Court, public registers, and other official documents is a grave offense that undermines the integrity of legal and administrative systems. This crime involves the creation, alteration, or falsification of documents with the intent to deceive, mislead, or gain unlawful advantage. Such fraudulent activities can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only individuals but also public trust in institutions that rely on the authenticity of these documents.
Court records and public registers serve as critical repositories of legal and administrative information, documenting events like property ownership, marriages, births, and legal proceedings. When these records are forged, it compromises the accuracy of historical data, disrupts legal processes, and can lead to wrongful convictions, fraudulent property claims, or unjust financial gains. The complexity of modern forgery methods, aided by advanced technology, makes detection and prevention increasingly challenging.
What is Forgery?
In the landmark case Sushil Suri v. C.B.I., AIR 2011 SC 1713 case, the Supreme Court laid down the basic elements of forgery in S.463 IPC as follows:
- Making a false document or part of it.
- Such act is done with intention:
- To cause damage or injury to the public or any person
- To support or claim any title
- To cause any person to part with property
- To cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract
- To committed fraud or that fraud is committed
The first ingredient in order to make someone liable for the offence of forgery is making of a false document or electronic record. Thus, it involves deception. What is false document is explained under Section 335 BNS.
Every false or fabricated document is not a forged document. There must be acts that constitute the document a false document a false or fabricated one, that is to say the case must fall within a definition of making a false document in Section 335 BNS, and such false document must also possess the character or tendency described in Section 336(1) BNS.
The second ingredient is intention to deceive. The crime of forgery is not imposed unless it is done with the intent to commit fraud larceny. For example, the work of art can be replicated or copied without any crime being committed unless someone attempted to sell or represent it as the original copies. Five situations are given under this section and if the intention of offender in any one of the situations is met then one of the ingredients of forgery is fulfilled.
S. 337 BNS:
Forgery of Record of Court or of Public Register, etc.:
Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, 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.
Explanation:
For the purposes of this section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
Ingredients of S. 337 BNS:
- All the ingredients of S. 336 BNS;
- The accused forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an identity document issued by Government;
- The document includes voter identity card or Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, 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 ; and
- He does it so to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney.
Section 337 BNS applies to forgery of a wide range of public and legal documents, including court records, public registers, certificates issued by public servants, powers of attorney, wills, adoption documents, etc. It is aggravated form of forgery under S. 336 BNS.
Punishment under S. 337 BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence under S. 337 BNS:
The offence under S. 337 BNS is Non-Cognizable, Non-Bailable and triable by Magistrate of the First Class.
In Mahesh Chandra Prasad and Another vs Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat 393 case, the Patna High Court observed: “To tamper with the record of a proceeding in a Court of justice in order to obtain from that Court a decision or order which it otherwise would not make is, to my mind, as much a public mischief as to attempt to secure the unauthorized release of a prisoner from jail or to obtain for an unqualified person credentials entitling him to practise as a surgeon or to navigate a ship. I can see no reason why the expression ”with intend to defraud,” as it occurs in Section 25, Penal Code, should be more narrowly construed by the Courts in India than it has been construed by the Courts of Common Law in England in which, in an indictment for forgery, an intent to defraud had to be alleged.
In State vs Parasram, AIR 1965 RAJ 9 case, the Rajasthan High Court observed: “”Such a forgery in order that it might be punishable under Section 466, I. P. C. should have been committed by a public servant to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney. In other words, when a public servant commits forgery in a register kept by him for any one of the four things mentioned above then only the offence falls under the category of Section 466, I. P. C.
In Purushottamdas Dalmia vs The State Of West Bengal, AIR 1961 SC 1589 case, the appellant Purushottamdas Dalmia and co-accused L. N. Kalyanam were convicted by the Court of Session, High Court, Calcutta, of offences under S. 120B read with S. 471 and S. 471 read with S. 466 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an import licence. His appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge was summarily dismissed by the High Court. Although the conspiracy was entered into at Calcutta the offences of using the forged documents as genuine were committed at Madras. Court observed the accused committed an offence of forgery by certificate or endorsement of confirmation and an endorsement of validation of the Import Trade Control Licence and the Customs Copy purporting to be made by public servant, to wit, the officers and staff of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and/or the offence of fraudulently or dishonestly using the aforesaid licence containing the aforesaid forged certificates and endorsements as to the confirmation and validation thereof knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents and the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with S. 466 and/or S. 471 read with S. 466 of the Indian Penal Code.
In State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1201 case, the Court said: “In this view of the matter if by virtue of preparing a false document purporting it to be a document of a court of justice and by virtue of such document a person who is not entitled to be released on bail could be released then, undoubtedly damage or injury has been caused to the public at large and, therefore, there is no reason why under such circumstances the accused who is the author of such forged document cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code”.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the forgery of court records, public registers, and other official documents represents a serious threat to the integrity of legal and administrative systems. Such fraudulent activities not only undermine public trust but also disrupt the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and accountability. The manipulation of critical documents can lead to devastating consequences, including wrongful legal outcomes, financial fraud, and the erosion of confidence in public institutions.
While legal frameworks around the world impose stringent penalties to deter such crimes, the evolving sophistication of forgery techniques—especially with the advent of digital technologies—poses significant challenges for detection and prevention. This highlights the need for continuous advancements in forensic methods, stringent regulatory oversight, and the adoption of secure, tamper-proof technologies in document management.
Moreover, public awareness and education play a pivotal role in combating forgery. Individuals must remain vigilant, verify the authenticity of documents, and report suspicious activities to the relevant authorities. Collaboration between law enforcement agencies, legal professionals, and technology experts is essential to develop comprehensive strategies to address this persistent issue.
Ultimately, safeguarding the authenticity of court records and public registers is not just a legal obligation but a societal imperative. By strengthening legal measures, enhancing technological safeguards, and fostering a culture of integrity, we can protect the foundational pillars of justice and governance from the corrosive effects of forgery.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here