Section 337 punishes forgery of particular kinds of document or electronic record: a record or proceeding of or in a Court, a Government identity document (including a voter identity card or Aadhaar Card), a register of birth, marriage or burial, a register kept by a public servant, a certificate or document made by a public servant in his official capacity, an authority relating to suits, or a power of attorney. The punishment is imprisonment of up to seven years and fine. It corresponds to IPC Section 466, with Government identity documents and electronic records added, “baptism” no longer listed, “Court of Justice” shortened to “Court”, and a new Explanation on electronic registers.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. The concordance lists Section 337 against a single provision of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 466, “Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.” — and the marginal heading is the same. A direct word-by-word comparison of the two texts shows differences in the list of documents covered, so this page classes Section 337 as Substantively changed:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 337 | S.466 “Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.” | Substantively changed |
A word-by-word and punctuation-mark-by-punctuation-mark comparison of the two texts shows the differences listed below, and no others. Sourcing note: the IPC text used for this comparison is this project’s local extract, which contains no electronic-record wording at all and does not include the amendments made by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The electronic-record differences below (items (1) and (5)) are therefore stated against that older text; the true IPC as it stood immediately before the BNS took effect may well already have carried this wording, in which case the real old-to-new difference on those points is smaller than stated here, or nil. The “Substantively changed” label does not rest on those points alone: the new identity-document class, the removal of “baptism” and the change from “Court of Justice” to “Court” are separate differences against the same local extract. The concordance carries no Change marker against Section 337; the “Substantively changed” label is Lexovia’s own, from this comparison. The differences are these. (1) The IPC covers a forged “document”; the BNS covers a forged “document or an electronic record”. (2) The IPC reads “a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice”; the BNS reads “a Court”, without the words “of Justice”. (3) New class of document: the BNS adds “an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card” to the list; there is nothing corresponding in the IPC list. (4) Removed wording: the IPC lists “a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial”; the BNS lists “a register of birth, marriage or burial”, so the word “baptism” no longer appears. (5) The BNS adds an Explanation stating that “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; the IPC text has no Explanation. The remaining items in the list (a register kept by a public servant as such, a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, an authority relating to suits, and a power of attorney) are word-for-word the same, and so is the punishment: imprisonment of either description for up to seven years, and also liable to fine.
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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 337 deals with forgery of particular kinds of document. Forgery is defined in Section 336(1); Section 337 applies where the forged document or electronic record is of one of the kinds the section lists. The section uses the verb “forges”, which Section 2 does not define. Because the section does not restate the intentions in Section 336(1), this page reads “forges” as importing that definition, including its intentions (compare Section 340(1), which speaks of a false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery). The forged document or electronic record must purport to be one of the following: (a) a record or proceeding of or in a Court; (b) an identity document issued by Government, including a voter identity card or Aadhaar Card; (c) a register of birth, marriage or burial; (d) a register kept by a public servant as such; (e) a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity; (f) an authority to institute or defend a suit, to take any proceedings in a suit, or the third kind of authority listed in the same phrase (its closing words, in the statutory text above); or (g) a power of attorney.
Several of these words have defined meanings elsewhere in the Sanhita. “Court” is defined in Section 2(5) as a Judge empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body is acting judicially. “Government” is defined in Section 2(12) as the Central Government or a State Government, so the words “identity document issued by Government” are about a document issued by one of those, and, on that definition, a card issued by a private body would not appear to be described by them. “Public servant” is defined in Section 2(28). The statutory Explanation adds that “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; that definition is not reproduced on this page.
The section fixes a single punishment: imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous, per Section 4(c)) for up to seven years, and the offender shall also be liable to fine. The maximum term is the same as that in Section 336(3), but Section 337 depends on the kind of document forged, not on an intention to cheat. Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and non-bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class; the same Schedule lists Section 336(3) as cognizable. It does not appear in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable. The section is one of a group: Section 338 deals with forged valuable securities, wills and similar documents, Section 339 with possessing a forged document of the kinds described in Sections 337 and 338 with intent to use it as genuine, and Section 340 with the use of a forged document as genuine.
Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to seven years, and the offender is also liable to fine. The section does not fix the amount of the fine.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and non-bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. It does not appear in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.
A document or electronic record purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court; an identity document issued by Government, including a voter identity card or Aadhaar Card; a register of birth, marriage or burial; a register kept by a public servant as such; a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity; an authority to institute or defend a suit or to take proceedings in it (the same phrase lists a third kind of authority, in its closing words in the statutory text); or a power of attorney.
The section speaks of an identity document issued by Government. “Government” is defined in Section 2(12) as the Central Government or a State Government. A card issued by a private company does not appear to be described by those words. A college card depends on who issued it; whether a particular card was issued by the Central Government or a State Government depends on the facts of the case.
Section 336 defines forgery and punishes it in three tiers depending on the intention (general, cheating, harming reputation). Section 337 applies where the forged document is one of the listed kinds, with its own single punishment of up to seven years and fine.
Yes. The BNS adds electronic records, adds Government identity documents (including voter identity card and Aadhaar Card), reads “Court” instead of “Court of Justice”, no longer lists “baptism” in the register list, and adds an Explanation about electronic registers. The punishment is the same. The Corresponding Provision section above lists every difference found.