Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVIII: Of Offences Relating to Documents and to Property Marks
Section 474: Having possession of document described in sections 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
[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 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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 474
-
Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing for investigation by the CBI.
- Anoop Bartaria & Etc. v. Dy. Director
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Jarnail Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab
- The State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Ors.
- State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) v. A. P. State Wakf Board & Ors.
- Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc
- Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 in Re: Mr. Mathews Nedumpara v. .
- M/S. Advanta India Ltd. v. B. N. Shivanna