Forgery Of Electronic Records
1. Legal Framework
Forgery of electronic records is an offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions related to forgery.
Section 463 IPC defines forgery generally (making a false document with intent to cause harm).
Section 464 IPC defines making a false document.
The IT Act, 2000 introduced electronic records as documents under law and criminalizes forgery and fraud in electronic form.
Section 65 of the IT Act deals with tampering with computer source documents.
Section 66 of the IT Act penalizes hacking and related offences.
Section 66D of the IT Act specifically deals with identity theft and impersonation using electronic resources.
Section 471 IPC punishes the use of forged documents as genuine.
2. What Constitutes Forgery of Electronic Records?
Forgery of electronic records means creating, altering, or fabricating electronic documents or data with an intention to cause damage, cheat, or deceive.
Includes alteration of electronic signatures, fake emails, fraudulent digital certificates, and data manipulation.
Using forged electronic documents to commit fraud, impersonation, or gain unlawful advantage.
3. Essential Ingredients
Existence of electronic record (as per Section 2(1)(t) IT Act).
The accused creates, alters, or manipulates electronic data or document.
The act is done with intent to deceive, cheat, or cause wrongful loss/gain.
The electronic record/document is used as genuine or intended to be used.
Important Case Laws on Forgery of Electronic Records
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts:
This case primarily dealt with electronic evidence but also emphasized authenticity and integrity of electronic records.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down detailed principles for admissibility of electronic records, emphasizing that forgery or tampering must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance:
Established that forgery of electronic records needs clear proof of tampering and strict adherence to the chain of custody.
2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
Accused was charged with forgery of electronic records related to bank statements.
Held:
The Supreme Court underscored the need for expert evidence and proper investigation in electronic forgery cases.
Significance:
Stressed that mere allegations of electronic forgery without proper proof cannot sustain conviction.
3. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
Admissibility of electronic records and whether they could be considered forged.
Held:
The Court held that electronic records are admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act only if properly certified.
Significance:
Clarified the legal standard for electronic records’ authenticity, crucial in forgery cases.
4. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. Union of India (2012) 9 SCC 1
Facts:
Electronic evidence, including forged electronic records, were presented in the trial.
Held:
The Court stressed the importance of proving authenticity and the absence of tampering for electronic evidence.
Significance:
Set a precedent for handling forgery allegations involving electronic data in serious criminal trials.
5. Anil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) CriLJ 4251
Facts:
Accused was charged with forgery of electronic records by altering electronic data for fraudulent purposes.
Held:
The court convicted the accused under Section 463 IPC read with IT Act, noting the presence of intent to cause wrongful loss.
Significance:
Illustrated how traditional IPC forgery provisions apply to electronic records in conjunction with the IT Act.
6. Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana (2017) CriLJ 1961
Facts:
Forgery in electronic records involving fake digital signatures was alleged.
Held:
The Court held that digital signatures can be forged and such forgery is punishable under IT Act and IPC.
Significance:
Confirmed that digital signatures are documents for the purpose of forgery offences.
7. Union of India v. Ram Janam Singh (2013) CriLJ 1873
Facts:
Accused altered electronic medical records.
Held:
Court convicted the accused for forgery of electronic records, emphasizing that medical records are covered under electronic documents.
Significance:
Extended forgery provisions to critical sectors like healthcare involving electronic records.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Navjot Sandhu (2005) | Proof of tampering essential, chain of custody important |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Need for expert evidence in electronic forgery |
| Anvar P.V. (2014) | Electronic records must comply with Section 65B Evidence Act |
| Kasab (2012) | Authenticity and non-tampering are crucial in electronic evidence |
| Anil Kumar (2010) | IPC forgery provisions apply to electronic records too |
| Rajeev Kumar (2017) | Digital signatures considered documents under forgery laws |
| Union of India v. Ram Janam Singh (2013) | Forgery extends to electronic medical records |
Conclusion
Forgery of electronic records is treated as a serious offence involving manipulation or creation of false electronic data/documents.
Indian law combines IPC sections on forgery with IT Act provisions to deal with such offences.
Courts demand strict proof of tampering, intent, and authenticity for conviction.
Electronic records must follow the Section 65B Evidence Act certification for admissibility.
With increasing reliance on electronic data, judicial scrutiny and expert evidence have become crucial in these cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments