Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XVIII > Forgery Involving Valuable Securities, Wills, and Property Documents (S. 338 BNS)
Forgery involving valuable securities, wills, and property documents represents a serious breach of trust and a significant threat to legal and financial systems worldwide. This form of deception, characterized by the unauthorized creation, alteration, or imitation of documents with the intent to deceive, can have far-reaching consequences for individuals, businesses, and institutions alike. Whether it’s the falsification of a will to alter inheritance rights, the counterfeiting of securities to commit financial fraud, or the manipulation of property deeds to claim unlawful ownership, the impacts of such crimes are profound and often devastating. This article delves into the complexities of forgery, examining its legal implications, methods of detection, and the measures that can be taken to prevent such fraudulent activities. Section 338 BNS deals with the offence of forgery involving valuable securities, wills, and property documents.
Forgery of valuable securities, wills, and property-related documents can lead to catastrophic financial losses, property disputes, and legal complications. The role of S. 338 BNS is crucial in safeguarding public trust in these documents and ensuring that offenders face stringent penalties for tampering with them.
S. 338 BNS:
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, 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 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.
Valuable security has been defined in S. 2(31) BNS as a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. Forging a document purporting to be a valuable security is an offence covered in S. 338 BNS.
Ingredients of S. 338 BNS:
- All the ingredients of S. 336 BNS;
- The accused forges a documents mentioned in S. 338 BNS; and
- The accused does it with intention of deceiving other.
The documents mentioned in S. 338 area valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or document which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or document to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon; or document 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; and
Punishment under S. 338 BNS:
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.
Classification of Offence:
The offence under S. 338 BNS is Non-Cognizable, Non-Bailable and triable by Magistrate of the First Class.
The provisions helps and protect financial institutions, property rights of individual, inheritance rights, family relations, and public trust in legal documents, etc.
Case Laws
In Calcutta Singh vs. The State, 1978 CRILJ 477 case, where the accused falsely identified a person as a deponent before the Oaths Commissioner. He said that the deponent had affixed his impression on the document. It was apparent that the said document would not have become an affidavit without the identification of the deponent by the accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the accused (abettor) was present at the time of the commission of the offence, i.e., impersonation, therefore, he was held to be guilty under Section 467 of IPC (S. 338 BNS).
In Adithela Immanuel Raju v. State of Orissa, 1992 CRILJ 243 case, Orissa High Court held that a bank draft constitutes a security for Section 467 of IPC (S. 338 BNS). Therefore, the bank manager who signed a forged draft is guilty of the offence under Section 467 of IPC (S. 338 BNS).
In State of Punjab v. Baj Singh, 1995 CRILJ 1311 case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held the accused liable under Section 467 for the issuance of cheques to withdraw money for official purposes while obtaining the signature of the signing officer under the same pretence. The Court held that the accused was acting under the capacity of a public servant and by forging the cheques and using them as genuine ones, he had committed a criminal breach of trust.
In Joginder Pal Dhiman vs Union of India, 2002 CRILJ 677 case, the appellant was employed as a branch manager with a bank. He changed the face value of three fixed deposit receipts belonging to him and his sons. Subsequently, he issued demand drafts in his and his wife’s name without depositing any amount to the bank. He subsequently withdrew the entire amount from their accounts which caused a wrongful loss to the Bank. But on being detected, the entire amount involved in both cases was deposited by the appellant. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, therefore, considered these circumstances and while confirming his conviction under Section 467 of IPC (S. 338 BNS).
Conclusion:
Forgery involving valuable securities, wills, and property documents poses a significant threat to the integrity of financial and legal systems. The consequences of such fraudulent activities extend beyond financial losses to undermine trust in essential institutions. Legal frameworks across jurisdictions have stringent measures to detect, prevent, and penalize forgery, highlighting the serious implications for offenders. As technology evolves, so do the methods of committing forgery, necessitating continuous advancements in forensic techniques and legal safeguards. Vigilance, public awareness, and robust legal enforcement are crucial to mitigating the risks associated with document forgery and ensuring the protection of individual and institutional interests.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here