"A mere alteration of the document does not make it a forged document unless made for some gain." Explain this statement under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The statement "A mere alteration of the document does not make it a forged document unless made for some gain" can be explained with the help of applicable provision and decided case laws. They are explained as under: According to section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. The Supreme Court in Ramchandran v. State, AIR 2010 SC 1922 , has held that to constitute an offence of forgery document must be made with dishonest or fraudulent intention. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The Supreme Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of UP , has held that mere alteration of document does not make it a forged document. Alteration must be made for some gain or for some objective. Similarly, in Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2011 CrLJ 1546 (P&H) , the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in certificate. However, the certificate did not anywhere say that school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating teaching experience of the accused, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed.