A without B's authority writes a letter and signs it in B's name relating to A's character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. Is A guilty of forgery? If so, give reasons.

The Direct Problem: A Signs B's Name to Obtain Employment

The illustration under consideration has been expressly resolved by the statute itself. Illustration (k) to Section 335 BNS reads:

"A without B's authority writes a letter and signs it in B's name certifying to A's character, intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. A has committed forgery inasmuch as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and thereby to induce Z to enter into an express or implied contract for service."

This is not merely a judicial analogy — it is the legislature's own answer, authoritatively placed within the text of the Act itself. The result is clear: A is unambiguously guilty of forgery. The reasons flow from a careful analysis of each ingredient.

Analysis of Each Ingredient

First: Making of a False Document. A has written a letter in B's name without B's authority and signed it as B. He has thereby made a document which purports to be made by B, while knowing perfectly well that it was not made by B or by B's authority. This falls squarely within the first category of Section 335 BNS — the document is a false document because it tells a lie about its own maker. The letter purports to be B's certification of A's character, but B never wrote it, never authorised it, and may not even know of its existence.

Second: Dishonestly or Fraudulently. A has acted fraudulently. He desires to deceive Z by presenting a letter as genuinely from B, when he knows it is his own fabrication. The idea of deceit is at the core of the act. He intends to create in Z's mind a false belief — that a person who knows A has certified his good character — and on the basis of that false belief, to extract a benefit, namely employment.

Third: Intent to Cause any Person to Enter into a Contract. This is the decisive ingredient. A's purpose is to induce Z to offer him a position — to enter into a contract of employment, whether express or implied. A contract of service, whether written or oral, is an express or implied contract. By presenting the forged character certificate, A intends that Z, believing the certificate to be genuine, will enter into this contract of service. This is precisely the intent described in Section 336(1) BNS.

It is important to notice that the section does not require that the fraud actually succeed. The offence is complete the moment the false document is made with the requisite intent. Whether Z actually employed A, or whether Z saw through the forgery and rejected the application, is entirely immaterial to A's criminal liability. The gist of the offence, as the courts have repeatedly confirmed, is the intent to commit fraud — not the actual commission of it.

The Allahabad Court's observation in Soshi Bhushan (1893 15 All 210) is apt in this context: the term claim in the context of forgery is not restricted to a claim to property. It may be a claim to anything — including a claim to be admitted to a university examination, or a claim to a position or employment. A's forged letter is being used to support his claim to be considered a person of good character suitable for employment under Z.

Punishment Under Section 336 BNS

The question of punishment depends on the nature of the intent. Section 336(2) prescribes imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both for basic forgery. However, A's act of forging a character certificate to obtain employment unmistakably has the purpose of cheating Z — inducing him to employ someone by a false representation. This brings A's conduct within Section 336(3) BNS (= Section 468 IPC), which punishes forgery for the purpose of cheating with imprisonment up to seven years and fine. Obtaining employment by a forged character certificate is a classic instance of forgery for cheating, since it involves dishonest inducement of Z to contract on the basis of a fabricated document.

Moreover, a forged certificate that misrepresents A's character could also be said to harm the reputation of B — since the letter, if traced back, might damage B's credibility or create awkward obligations in B's name. This could attract Section 336(4) BNS, which punishes forgery intended to harm the reputation of any party with imprisonment up to three years and fine.

A Nearby Illustration for Contrast

The statute itself provides a closely analogous illustration — Illustration (j) to Section 335 BNS — which is worth examining alongside illustration (k) to understand the principle in its full range:

"A writes a letter and signs it with B's name without B's authority, certifying that A is a man of good character and in distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, as A made a false document in order to induce Z to part with property, A has committed forgery."

In illustration (j), the intent is to cause Z to part with property (alms, money). In illustration (k), the intent is to cause Z to enter into a contract (of employment). The act of making the false document is identical in both cases. Only the purpose differs. Both are equally forgery — but under different heads of the specified intents. Together, these two illustrations establish the comprehensive principle: whenever a person fabricates a document in another's name, without authority, and with the intention of obtaining any advantage by inducing another to act on the belief that the document is genuine, he commits forgery.

The Decisive Principle

The courts have consistently held that to constitute forgery under Section 336 BNS, two elements are indispensable. First, deceit — the intention to create a false belief in the mind of the person to whom the document is presented. Second, injury or advantage — either actual or possible harm to the person deceived, or a corresponding benefit to the deceiver. As the Supreme Court articulated in Vimla Dr v Delhi Administration (AIR 1963 SC 1572), the expression defraud involves both deceit and injury to the person deceived, and injury includes any infringement of a legal right, not merely deprivation of money or property.

In A's case, both elements are present with perfect clarity. The deceit lies in presenting B's forged name as a genuine certification. The injury to Z lies in inducing him to enter a contract of service — a legally significant transaction — on the basis of a fabricated document. A has exposed Z to the very real risk of employing an unverified person, and has also potentially placed B in an embarrassing and legally awkward position by using B's name without consent. The offence is complete, and A is guilty of forgery.