Section 463 IPC defines **forgery**. According to *Ramchandran v. Stat…

Question

Section 463 IPC defines **forgery**. According to *Ramchandran v. State*, AIR 2010 SC 1922, what mental element must the prosecution establish to constitute the offence?

Accepted Answer

A. {'text': 'Dishonest or fraudulent intention; mere alteration of a document without an intent to defraud does not amount to forgery', 'label': 'A'}

1. *Ramchandran v. State*, AIR 2010 SC 1922, held that to constitute forgery the false document must be made with **dishonest or fraudulent intention**.
2. *Parminder Kaur v. State of UP* added that mere alteration of a document does not make it a forged document; alteration must be made for some gain or objective.
3. *Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab* (P&H) 2011 CrLJ 1546 illustrated that an act done without intent to defraud, even if the underlying claim is wrong, is not forgery.
4. Strict liability and negligence do not satisfy the section.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 9 (Indian Penal Code, 1860), pp. 205-224._

Answer

{'text': 'Strict liability with no requirement of any intention to defraud whatsoever in any case at all', 'label': 'B'}

Answer

{'text': 'Only negligence in maintaining the document, not any specific intention to defraud whatsoever at all', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'Knowledge that the document might be misused by a third party at some later time in the future', 'label': 'D'}