An Analysis of Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code: Possession of Forged Documents

An Analysis of Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code: Possession of Forged Documents

Introduction

Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses the serious offence of possessing a document, knowing it to be forged, with the intent to use it as genuine. This provision plays a critical role in the broader statutory scheme designed to penalize forgery and related fraudulent activities. Unlike sections that punish the act of forgery itself or the use of forged documents, Section 474 specifically targets the culpable possession of certain categories of forged documents. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of Section 474 IPC, examining its essential ingredients, judicial interpretations, and its interplay with other relevant provisions of the Code, drawing upon key case law from Indian courts.

Understanding Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 474 IPC is titled: "Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine." The section stipulates:

"Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record 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 or electronic record 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."

To establish an offence under Section 474 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients:

  • Possession: The accused must have been in possession of the document or electronic record.
  • Knowledge: The accused must have known that the document or electronic record in their possession was forged.
  • Intent: The accused must have intended that the forged document or electronic record be used fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine.
  • Nature of the Document: The document or electronic record must be of the description mentioned in either Section 466 IPC or Section 467 IPC.

The punishment varies depending on whether the forged document falls under Section 466 IPC (e.g., record of a Court of Justice, public register) or Section 467 IPC (e.g., valuable security, will). Possession of a document described in Section 467 IPC attracts a more severe punishment, including life imprisonment.

Judicial Interpretation and Analysis of Key Elements

1. Possession of a Forged Document

The term "possession" implies conscious and knowing possession. Accidental or unknowing possession would not suffice to attract liability under this section. The prosecution must establish that the accused had control over the forged document.

2. Knowledge and Intent (Mens Rea)

The elements of "knowing the same to be forged" and "intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine" constitute the requisite mens rea for the offence. Proving knowledge and intent, being states of mind, often relies on circumstantial evidence.

The Delhi High Court in Sindhar v. State (2009 DHC 4524), also reported as Siridhar v. State (2009 SCC ONLINE DEL 3433), elaborated on this aspect:

"In order to succeed for conviction under Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that (i) document was a forged document; (ii) the accused had the document in his possession; (iii) the accused knew it to be forged when he had it in his possession; (iv) the accused intended dishonestly or fraudulently, that the document should be used as genuine document."

The Court further observed that:

"Knowledge and intention are state of mind which cannot be proved by direct evidence and have to be inferred from the attending circumstances. Possession of such bonds in a huge quantity coupled with denial of possession by itself is sufficient to infer the requisite knowledge and intention on the part of the appellants... When forged documents of this nature, which are not readily available in the market, are found in possession of a person, and he does not try to give any explanation for his possession, does not disclose the source from which he obtained the documents, an adverse inference can be drawn against him." (Sindhar v. State, 2009 DHC 4524).

A similar line of reasoning regarding the inference of knowledge and intention from possession and subsequent denial was adopted in Anis Another v. State Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2009), although that case primarily dealt with counterfeit currency under Section 489B/C IPC. The principle of inferring mens rea from the circumstances, including the accused's conduct, remains pertinent.

3. Nature of the Document: Sections 466 and 467 IPC

Section 474 IPC specifically applies to forged documents described in Sections 466 and 467 IPC.

  • Section 466 IPC pertains to forgery of records of a Court of Justice or of a public register, etc. This includes documents like a certificate of birth, marriage, or death registration, or any document made by a public servant in their official capacity.
  • Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of more critical documents such as a valuable security, will, authority to adopt, or an acquittance or receipt for money or movable property. A "valuable security" is defined in Section 30 IPC 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.

The Supreme Court in MD.IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (2009 SCC 8 751) discussed Section 467 in the context of forging a valuable security. The gravity associated with documents under Section 467 explains the higher penalty prescribed under the latter part of Section 474 IPC.

4. The Document Must Be "Forged"

A foundational requirement for invoking Section 474 IPC is that the document in question must be a "forged document." Section 470 IPC defines a "forged document" as a false document made wholly or in part by forgery. "Forgery" is defined in Section 463 IPC, and "making a false document" is elaborated in Section 464 IPC.

The Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj And Another (2018 SCC 7 581) extensively analyzed the concept of making a false document under Section 464 IPC. The Court emphasized that for a document to be considered "false," it must be made dishonestly or fraudulently with one of the intents specified in Section 464. Merely executing a document under false pretenses by one person does not necessarily mean another person involved in its use has "made" a false document, unless direct involvement in its creation or material alteration with fraudulent intent is proven. The Court clarified that "making" implies a conscious act, and generally, only the creator of a document can be charged with forgery under Section 463/464 IPC. While Section 474 IPC deals with possession, the document itself must meet the criteria of being "forged" as understood in these primary sections.

As noted in Shri Vivek S/O Yashewant Khandekar v. The State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2013), if the prosecution fails to point out any single document that is alleged to be forged, Section 474 IPC would not be attracted.

Relationship with Other Forgery Offences

Section 474 IPC is part of a cluster of offences dealing with forgery under Chapter XVIII of the IPC. It is distinct from:

  • Section 463/464 IPC: These sections define forgery and the making of a false document, penalizing the act of creation or alteration.
  • Section 465 IPC: This section provides general punishment for forgery.
  • Section 471 IPC: This section punishes the act of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document known or believed to be forged. While Section 471 deals with the use of a forged document, Section 474 deals with its possession with the intent to use.

The Supreme Court in MD.IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (2009 SCC 8 751) grouped Section 474 with Sections 463 to 471 under the general heading of offences related to "Forgery making or executing a false document." This highlights its integral role in the legislative framework against forgery.

The case of Ajay Narayan Ram Revisionist v. State Of U.P Opposite Party (Allahabad High Court, 2013), while discussing Section 471 IPC, noted that to prove a charge thereunder, the prosecution would have to prove that the documents were "prepared or made by the revisionist himself." This underscores the difference with Section 474, where the focus is on possession with knowledge and intent, not necessarily on the act of creation by the possessor.

Illustrative Case Law

Several cases illustrate the application of Section 474 IPC:

  • In MIRZA HIMAYAT INYAT BAIG v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2025 BHC 7917, Bombay High Court), the petitioner was convicted, inter alia, under Section 474 IPC in connection with the German Bakery Bomb Blast Case, indicating the section's application in serious criminal matters.
  • The case of Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Union Of India And Others (1960 SCC ONLINE P&H 91, Punjab & Haryana High Court) mentions a criminal complaint involving a charge under Section 474 IPC, leading to the petitioner's suspension from service.
  • In ABDUL KADIR NOORMOHAMMAD SHEIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Gujarat High Court, 2019), an FIR including charges under Section 474 IPC (among others) was quashed due to a matrimonial settlement, but it shows the section being invoked in diverse factual scenarios.

Procedural Aspects and Burden of Proof

The burden of proving all ingredients of Section 474 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt lies squarely on the prosecution. This fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence was reiterated by the Supreme Court in cases like Dr S.L Goswami v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1972 SCC 3 22), although in a different context (Prevention of Corruption Act), the principle regarding the prosecution's unwavering burden is universally applicable.

While courts may draw inferences regarding knowledge and intent from circumstantial evidence, as discussed in Sindhar v. State (2009 DHC 4524), this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It is also pertinent to note the context provided by Kamlapati Trivedi v. State Of West Bengal (Supreme Court Of India, 1978), which discussed the policy behind requiring a complaint in writing by the court for certain offences against public justice (like those under Sections 463, 471, 475, or 476 IPC when committed by a party to a proceeding in respect of a document produced in evidence). While Section 474 IPC is not explicitly listed in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which deals with the procedure for prosecution for certain offences against public justice), the underlying principle of safeguarding against frivolous prosecutions in matters involving court documents is relevant to the broader understanding of forgery-related offences.

Conclusion

Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code serves as a crucial deterrent against the possession of significant forged documents with the intent to use them for fraudulent or dishonest purposes. Its stringent penalties, particularly for documents described under Section 467 IPC, reflect the gravity with which the law views such conduct. The successful prosecution under this section hinges on establishing not only the possession of a forged document falling within the specified categories but also the accused's knowledge of its forged nature and their intention to use it as genuine.

Judicial pronouncements, such as those in Sindhar v. State, have clarified that while direct evidence of mens rea may be elusive, it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. However, the burden of proof remains steadfastly on the prosecution. A thorough understanding of the definitions of "forgery" and "false document" as elucidated in cases like Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj is essential for the correct application of Section 474 IPC. This provision, thus, remains a vital tool in upholding the sanctity of important documents and combating fraudulent activities within the Indian legal system.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and academic purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.