False Document vs Forgery under BNS: Section 335 and Section 336 Distinguished

A person, as a calligraphy exercise, perfectly reproduces another's signature on a blank sheet, with no intention to use it for any purpose. Has this person committed forgery? A person materially alters a document but with the honest belief that they were authorised to do so. Is this forgery? The answers turn on a crucial distinction in the law of document offences: the distinction between MAKING A FALSE DOCUMENT (Section 335) and FORGERY (Section 336). These two concepts are intimately related but distinct. Making a false document (Section 335) is the DEFINITION of what constitutes a false document - the physical act of falsely making, signing, sealing, executing, or altering a document. Forgery (Section 336) is the OFFENCE - the making of a false document WITH a specified wrongful intent. The making of a false document is a necessary component of forgery, but it is not, by itself, an offence; it becomes the offence of forgery only when accompanied by the wrongful intent. This module provides a focused, comparative analysis of the two concepts: their statutory provisions, the relationship between them, the key distinction (definition vs offence, and the addition of wrongful intent), the significance of false authorship, and the leading cases.

1. Introduction

Two related but distinct concepts

Making a false document (Section 335) and forgery (Section 336) are two intimately related but distinct concepts:

Making a false document is a necessary COMPONENT of forgery.
But making a false document is not, by itself, the offence.
Forgery is the OFFENCE - making a false document PLUS the wrongful intent.

Definition vs offence

The fundamental relationship:

SECTION 335: a DEFINITION - it defines what it means to 'make a false document' (the physical act).
SECTION 336: the OFFENCE - it defines forgery as making a false document WITH a wrongful intent.

The importance of the distinction

The distinction is important because:

It clarifies the structure of the forgery offence (definition + offence).
It shows that making a false document alone is not an offence.
It highlights the essential role of the wrongful intent.
It is a classic and heavily examined comparison in the law of document offences.

2. Section 335 BNS: Making a False Document

Text of Section 335

Section 335 BNS (formerly Section 464 IPC)

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record who:

First. Dishonestly or fraudulently: (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly. Without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person; or
Thirdly. Dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

The three modes of making a false document

Section 335 identifies three modes:

First mode: making/signing/sealing/executing a document with intent to make it appear made by another person or authority (false authorship).
Second mode: materially altering a document without lawful authority (false alteration).
Third mode: causing a person to sign/execute a document who cannot understand it due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception (false execution by a deceived/incapable person).

The nature of Section 335 (a definition)

Section 335 is a DEFINITION:

It defines what it means to 'make a false document'.
It does NOT itself create an offence or prescribe a punishment.
It supplies the meaning of 'false document' used in the forgery offence (Section 336).
It is a definitional provision, not a penal provision.

3. Section 336 BNS: Forgery

Text of Section 336

Section 336(1) BNS (formerly Section 463 IPC)

Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Forgery = false document + wrongful intent

Forgery is the making of a false document PLUS the wrongful intent:

MAKING A FALSE DOCUMENT (as defined in Section 335).
PLUS the WRONGFUL INTENT (to cause damage/injury, support a claim/title, cause delivery of property, induce a contract, or commit fraud).

The equation: Forgery = Making a false document (Section 335) + Wrongful intent (Section 336).

The nature of Section 336 (the offence)

Section 336 is the OFFENCE:

It defines the offence of forgery.
It incorporates the definition of 'false document' from Section 335.
It adds the essential element of the wrongful intent.
It is a penal provision (with punishment prescribed in Section 336(2) and the aggravated forms).

4. The Key Distinction: Definition vs Offence

Provision	Nature
Section 335 (Making a False Document)	A DEFINITION - defines what makes a document 'false'
Section 336 (Forgery)	The OFFENCE - making a false document PLUS wrongful intent

The KEY DISTINCTION is DEFINITION vs OFFENCE:

SECTION 335 is a DEFINITION - it defines what it means to 'make a false document' (the physical act). It does not itself create an offence or prescribe punishment.
SECTION 336 is the OFFENCE - it defines forgery as making a false document (as defined in Section 335) WITH a wrongful intent. It is the penal provision.

The significance:

Section 335 supplies the MEANING of 'false document'.
Section 336 uses that meaning and adds the wrongful intent to constitute the offence of forgery.
The two work together - Section 335 defines the false document; Section 336 makes it forgery when done with wrongful intent.

The structure:

Section 335 (definition) is a building block.
Section 336 (offence) uses that building block and adds the wrongful intent.
Neither operates alone - Section 335 defines but does not punish; Section 336 punishes but relies on Section 335's definition.

5. The Addition of Wrongful Intent

The essential addition that transforms making a false document into forgery is the WRONGFUL INTENT:

Making a false document (Section 335) is not itself an offence.
Forgery (Section 336) is making a false document WITH one of the specified wrongful intents.

The specified wrongful intents (Section 336):

Intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person.
Intent to support any claim or title.
Intent to cause any person to part with property.
Intent to cause any person to enter into any contract.
Intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

The significance of the wrongful intent:

The wrongful intent is what TRANSFORMS the making of a false document into the offence of forgery.
Without the wrongful intent, the making of a false document is not forgery (though it may involve the dishonest/fraudulent element of Section 335).
The wrongful intent is the essential element that makes forgery an offence.

A subtle point on the dishonest/fraudulent element:

Section 335 itself requires that the making of the false document be 'dishonestly or fraudulently'.
Section 336 adds the SPECIFIC wrongful intents (damage, claim, property, contract, fraud).
So forgery requires both the dishonest/fraudulent making (Section 335) AND the specific wrongful intent (Section 336).

6. The Three Modes of Making a False Document

Section 335 identifies three modes of making a false document, each of which may form the basis of forgery:

FIRST MODE - false authorship:

Making, signing, sealing, or executing a document with the intention of making it appear to have been made by ANOTHER person or authority.
Example: signing another person's name on a document to make it appear they signed it.
The falsity is in the AUTHORSHIP - the document falsely purports to be made by another.

SECOND MODE - false alteration:

Materially altering a document WITHOUT lawful authority, after it has been made.
Example: altering the amount on a cheque, or the terms of a contract, without authority.
The falsity is in the ALTERATION - the document has been materially altered without authority.

THIRD MODE - false execution by a deceived/incapable person:

Causing a person to sign/execute a document who cannot understand it due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception.
Example: tricking an illiterate person into signing a document by misrepresenting its contents.
The falsity is in the EXECUTION - the document was executed by a person who did not understand it.

All three modes involve the DISHONEST or FRAUDULENT making of a false document, and any of them may form the basis of forgery when accompanied by the wrongful intent (Section 336).

7. The Concept of False Authorship

A crucial concept in the law of false documents and forgery is FALSE AUTHORSHIP:

A 'false document' is one that is false in the sense of WHO MADE IT (false authorship), not merely one that contains false statements.
The falsity must go to the MAKING/AUTHORSHIP of the document, not merely its contents.

The distinction between false authorship and false contents:

FALSE AUTHORSHIP: the document falsely purports to be made by a person who did not make it (or was materially altered, or executed by a deceived person). This is a 'false document' and may form the basis of forgery.
FALSE CONTENTS: a document genuinely made by its actual maker, but containing false statements. This is NOT a 'false document' in the Section 335 sense - the maker is the actual maker, even if the contents are false.

The significance:

Forgery requires a FALSE DOCUMENT (false authorship), not merely a document with false contents.
A person who makes a genuine document (as its actual maker) containing false statements does NOT commit forgery - though they may commit other offences (e.g., cheating, if the false statements are used to deceive).

📖 Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581

The Supreme Court held that for forgery, there must be the making of a FALSE DOCUMENT within the meaning of Section 464 IPC (now Section 335 BNS). The Court held that a person who makes a genuine document (as its actual maker) containing false statements does NOT commit forgery - the document must be a 'false document' in the sense of FALSE AUTHORSHIP (falsely purporting to be made by another, or materially altered, or executed by a deceived person). A false document is not the same as a document containing a false statement. Rule: forgery requires false authorship, not merely false contents.

This is one of the most important principles in the law of forgery - the falsity must go to the MAKING of the document (false authorship), not merely its contents. A genuine document with false contents is not a false document, and its making is not forgery.

8. Making a False Document Without Wrongful Intent

An important consequence of the definition-vs-offence distinction is that making a false document WITHOUT the wrongful intent is NOT forgery:

Section 335 defines the making of a false document (with the dishonest/fraudulent element).
But forgery (Section 336) requires the ADDITIONAL specific wrongful intent.

The scenarios:

Making a false document with the wrongful intent (Section 336): forgery.
Making a false document without the wrongful intent: not forgery (though Section 335's dishonest/fraudulent element must still be considered).

However, a nuance:

Section 335 itself requires the making to be 'dishonestly or fraudulently'.
So a document made WITHOUT any dishonest or fraudulent element is not even a 'false document' under Section 335 (e.g., a calligraphy exercise reproducing a signature with no dishonest/fraudulent purpose).
And a false document made WITHOUT the specific wrongful intent of Section 336 is not forgery.

The practical point:

For forgery, both elements must be present: the making of a false document (Section 335, with dishonest/fraudulent element) AND the specific wrongful intent (Section 336).
The absence of either defeats the charge of forgery.

9. The Relationship Between the Two Provisions

The relationship between Section 335 and Section 336 is one of DEFINITION and OFFENCE:

Section 335 (definition): defines 'making a false document' - the physical act (in three modes), with the dishonest/fraudulent element.
Section 336 (offence): defines forgery - making a false document (Section 335) PLUS the specific wrongful intent.

How they work together:

Section 336 refers to 'makes any false document' - this incorporates the definition in Section 335.
To determine whether forgery is committed, one must first ask: was a false document made (Section 335)?
And then: was it made with the specified wrongful intent (Section 336)?
If both are satisfied, forgery is committed.

The structure of a forgery analysis:

Step 1: Was a false document made (Section 335)? - Check the three modes and the dishonest/fraudulent element.
Step 2: Was it made with the specified wrongful intent (Section 336)? - Check the wrongful intents.
If yes to both: forgery.

The interdependence:

Section 335 cannot operate alone as an offence (it is only a definition).
Section 336 cannot operate without Section 335 (it relies on the definition of 'false document').
The two are interdependent - together they constitute the offence of forgery.

10. Illustrations

Illustration 1 (forgery):

A signs B's name on a promissory note, making it appear that B signed it, intending to use it to claim money from B (wrongful intent - to support a claim/cause delivery of property).
A made a false document (first mode, false authorship - Section 335) with wrongful intent (Section 336) - this is FORGERY.

Illustration 2 (false document, but the wrongful intent question):

A alters the amount on a cheque without authority, intending to defraud (wrongful intent - fraud).
A made a false document (second mode, false alteration - Section 335) with wrongful intent (Section 336) - this is FORGERY.

Illustration 3 (not forgery - no false authorship):

A writes a document in their own name, containing false statements about a transaction.
A is the actual maker of the document (no false authorship) - the document contains false CONTENTS but is not a FALSE DOCUMENT (false authorship). This is NOT forgery (though it may be cheating if used to deceive).

Illustration 4 (not forgery - no wrongful intent):

A, as a calligraphy exercise, reproduces B's signature on a blank sheet, with no dishonest/fraudulent purpose and no intention to use it.
A did not make a false document with any dishonest/fraudulent element or wrongful intent - this is NOT forgery (and arguably not even a 'false document' under Section 335 due to the absence of the dishonest/fraudulent element).

Illustration 5 (third mode):

A tricks C (an illiterate person) into signing a document by falsely telling C it is a receipt, when it is actually a sale deed, intending to defraud C.
A caused C to sign a document C did not understand due to deception (third mode - Section 335) with wrongful intent (Section 336) - this is FORGERY.

11. The Comparative Table

Section 335	Section 336
Section 335 (Making a False Document)	Section 336 (Forgery)
Formerly Section 464 IPC	Formerly Section 463 IPC
A DEFINITION	The OFFENCE
Defines what makes a document 'false'	Defines forgery (false document + wrongful intent)
No offence/punishment by itself	The penal provision (with punishment)
Three modes: false authorship, false alteration, false execution	Making a false document + specified wrongful intent
Requires dishonest/fraudulent element	Requires the specific wrongful intent (damage/claim/property/contract/fraud)
A building block	Uses the building block + adds wrongful intent

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581

Discussed above. Forgery requires false authorship (a false document), not merely false contents.

📖 Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751

The Supreme Court held that for forgery, there must be the making of a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. The Court held that a person executing a document as its actual maker (even a false claim) does not commit forgery unless the document is a 'false document' (false authorship). Rule: false document required for forgery.

📖 Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15

The Supreme Court held that for forgery, the specific mens rea (dishonest or fraudulent intent) must be established, not merely the physical act of making or altering the document. This confirms the requirement of the wrongful intent (Section 336) in addition to the making of a false document (Section 335). Rule: mens rea/wrongful intent must be established.

📖 Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 622

The Supreme Court considered the framework for the making of a false document and forgery, elaborating the requirement that the document be false in the sense defined in Section 464 IPC. Rule: framework for false document and forgery.

📖 Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 322

The Supreme Court considered the framework for forgery and the requirement of a false document. The Court elaborated the distinction between a false document and a document with false contents. Rule: false document vs false contents.

📖 Ibrahim v. State (framework)

The courts have elaborated the framework for the making of a false document (Section 464 IPC) and forgery (Section 463 IPC), confirming that forgery requires both the making of a false document and the wrongful intent. Rule: both elements required for forgery.

📖 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh, (framework)

The courts have considered the framework for the three modes of making a false document under Section 464 IPC, elaborating each mode. Rule: three modes framework.

📖 Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572

The Supreme Court considered the meaning of 'fraudulently' and 'dishonestly' in the context of the making of a false document and forgery. The Court elaborated the mens rea requirement. Rule: meaning of fraudulently and dishonestly.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581. Forgery requires false authorship.
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751. False document required for forgery.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15. Wrongful intent must be established.
Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 622. False document and forgery framework.
Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 322. False document vs false contents.
Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572. Meaning of fraudulently and dishonestly.
Ibrahim v. State (framework). Both elements required for forgery.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh (framework). Three modes framework.
R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821. Document offences framework.
Sushil Suri v. CBI, (2011) 5 SCC 708. Forgery and false document framework.
State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 8 SCC 617. Forgery framework.
Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State of Punjab, (2011) 6 SCC 733. Document offences framework.
Emperor v. Hilaji Lala, AIR 1934 Bom 260. False documents framework.
Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (framework). Forgery framework.
Prabhu Dayal v. State of Haryana (framework). Forged document framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between making a false document and forgery?

Making a false document (Section 335 BNS) and forgery (Section 336 BNS) are intimately related but distinct. SECTION 335 is a DEFINITION - it defines what it means to 'make a false document' (the physical act, in three modes: false authorship, false alteration, or false execution by a deceived/incapable person, all with a dishonest/fraudulent element). It does NOT itself create an offence or prescribe punishment. SECTION 336 is the OFFENCE - it defines forgery as making a false document (as defined in Section 335) WITH a specified wrongful intent (to cause damage/injury, support a claim/title, cause delivery of property, induce a contract, or commit fraud). The KEY DISTINCTION: Section 335 is a DEFINITION (what makes a document false); Section 336 is the OFFENCE (making a false document PLUS wrongful intent). The equation: Forgery = Making a false document (Section 335) + Wrongful intent (Section 336). Making a false document is NOT by itself an offence; it becomes forgery only when accompanied by the wrongful intent.

What are the three modes of making a false document under Section 335?

Section 335 BNS identifies three modes of making a false document: (i) FIRST MODE - FALSE AUTHORSHIP: making, signing, sealing, or executing a document with the intention of making it appear to have been made by ANOTHER person or authority (e.g., signing another's name to make it appear they signed it). The falsity is in the authorship. (ii) SECOND MODE - FALSE ALTERATION: materially altering a document without lawful authority, after it has been made (e.g., altering the amount on a cheque or the terms of a contract without authority). The falsity is in the alteration. (iii) THIRD MODE - FALSE EXECUTION by a deceived/incapable person: causing a person to sign/execute a document who cannot understand it due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception (e.g., tricking an illiterate person into signing a document by misrepresenting its contents). The falsity is in the execution. All three modes involve the DISHONEST or FRAUDULENT making of a false document, and any of them may form the basis of forgery when accompanied by the wrongful intent (Section 336). The BNS extends all three modes to electronic records and electronic signatures, reflecting the digital age.

What is false authorship, and why does it matter?

FALSE AUTHORSHIP is a crucial concept in the law of forgery. A 'false document' is one that is false in the sense of WHO MADE IT (false authorship), NOT merely one that contains false statements. The falsity must go to the MAKING/AUTHORSHIP of the document, not merely its contents. The distinction: FALSE AUTHORSHIP means the document falsely purports to be made by a person who did not make it (or was materially altered, or executed by a deceived person) - this is a 'false document' and may form the basis of forgery. FALSE CONTENTS means a document genuinely made by its actual maker, but containing false statements - this is NOT a 'false document' in the Section 335 sense, because the maker is the actual maker even if the contents are false. Why it matters: forgery requires a FALSE DOCUMENT (false authorship), not merely a document with false contents. In Sheila Sebastian v R. Jawaharaj (2018), the Supreme Court held that a person who makes a genuine document (as its actual maker) containing false statements does NOT commit forgery - the document must be a 'false document' in the sense of false authorship. A false document is not the same as a document containing a false statement. So a person who writes a genuine document in their own name with false contents does not commit forgery (though they may commit cheating if the false statements are used to deceive).

Is making a false document itself an offence?

No - making a false document is NOT itself an offence. Section 335 is a DEFINITION, not a penal provision - it defines what it means to 'make a false document' but does not itself create an offence or prescribe punishment. Forgery (Section 336) is the offence - making a false document (as defined in Section 335) WITH a specified wrongful intent. So the making of a false document becomes the OFFENCE of forgery only when accompanied by the wrongful intent. The scenarios: making a false document WITH the wrongful intent (Section 336) is forgery; making a false document WITHOUT the wrongful intent is not forgery. However, a nuance: Section 335 itself requires the making to be 'dishonestly or fraudulently', so a document made without any dishonest/fraudulent element is not even a 'false document' under Section 335 (e.g., a calligraphy exercise reproducing a signature with no dishonest/fraudulent purpose). And a false document made without the specific wrongful intent of Section 336 is not forgery. For forgery, BOTH elements must be present: the making of a false document (Section 335, with the dishonest/fraudulent element) AND the specific wrongful intent (Section 336). The absence of either defeats the charge of forgery.

How do Sections 335 and 336 work together?

Sections 335 and 336 work together as DEFINITION and OFFENCE. Section 335 (definition) defines 'making a false document' - the physical act (in three modes), with the dishonest/fraudulent element. Section 336 (offence) defines forgery - making a false document (Section 335) PLUS the specified wrongful intent. Section 336 refers to 'makes any false document' - this incorporates the definition in Section 335. The structure of a forgery analysis: STEP 1 - Was a false document made (Section 335)? Check the three modes (false authorship, false alteration, false execution) and the dishonest/fraudulent element. STEP 2 - Was it made with the specified wrongful intent (Section 336)? Check the wrongful intents (damage/injury, support claim/title, cause delivery of property, induce contract, commit fraud). If YES to both, forgery is committed. The interdependence: Section 335 cannot operate alone as an offence (it is only a definition); Section 336 cannot operate without Section 335 (it relies on the definition of 'false document'). The two are interdependent - together they constitute the offence of forgery. Section 335 is the building block (the false document); Section 336 uses that building block and adds the wrongful intent to constitute the offence.

Does a document with false statements amount to forgery?

Not necessarily - it depends on whether the document is a FALSE DOCUMENT (false authorship) or merely a document with false CONTENTS. If a person makes a GENUINE document (as its actual maker) that merely CONTAINS FALSE STATEMENTS, this is NOT forgery - because the document is not a 'false document' in the Section 335 sense (the maker is the actual maker, even if the contents are false). Forgery requires a FALSE DOCUMENT (false authorship) - a document falsely purporting to be made by another, or materially altered, or executed by a deceived person. In Sheila Sebastian v R. Jawaharaj (2018), the Supreme Court clearly held that a false document is NOT the same as a document containing a false statement - forgery requires false authorship, not merely false contents. Example: if A writes a document in their own name containing false statements about a transaction, A is the actual maker (no false authorship) - the document has false CONTENTS but is not a FALSE DOCUMENT, so this is NOT forgery (though it may be cheating if the false statements are used to deceive). Conversely, if A signs B's name on a document to make it appear B made it, this IS a false document (false authorship) and may be forgery. The critical question is always: is the document false in the sense of WHO MADE IT (false authorship - forgery possible), or merely false in its CONTENTS (not forgery)?