Chapter X – Offences Relating to Coin, Currency notes, Bank  notes and Government Stamps (Sections 176-186) 

A. Counterfeiting Coin and Currency (Section 176-183)

B. Offences Related to Government Stamps (Section 184-186)

INTRODUCTION  

Chapter X of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 includes Sections 178 to 188 states  “Offences Relating to Coin, Currency Notes, Bank Notes and Government Stamps.” This chapter  is especially important to protect and safeguard India’s currency and payment instruments from  criminal activity including counterfeiting, possession, use and trafficking in counterfeit adult  currency or counterfeit adult coins or inflated currency or counterfeit government stamps or  whatever. 

The provisions of these sections provide definitions of important terms such as coin by (The  Coinage Act, 2011) and bank-note, as well as providing serious criminal sanctions, including life  imprisonment, for persons who counterfeit, deal in counterfeit property or use forged property; as  well as penalties for producing or possessing tools used to create counterfeit property, reflecting  the preventive and punitive organism of the law. 

Notably, the existence of legislation is important to promote confidence and trust among the public  in the financial system as a whole and to maintain economic stability. For example, Article 300A  or Article 21.

1. Counterfeiting Coin and Currency (Section 176-183) 

Section 176: Counterfeiting coin, Government stamps, currency notes or bank-notes 

The section states that “Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of  counterfeiting, any coin, stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, currency-note  or bank-note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either  description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.” 

Key Elements of the offence  

1. Mens Rea: The term “mens rea” means intention and knowledge of a person. The person must  have either intention of counterfeiting or knowingly perform any part of the counterfeiting process. 2. Objects covered: The objects covered in this section was coins, stamps issued by the government  for revenue, currency notes and bank notes.  

Punishment  

• Imprisonment for life (It is also known as Life Imprisonment)  
• Imprisonment up to 10 years (It can be rigorous or simple)  
• Fine  

Terms used in this section  

1. Bank notes: These are the promissory notes or engagement which were used to pay money, when  demand arises in the market. There are certain agencies which have the authority to issue bank  notes which are any bank worldwide, by or under the authority of a State or Sovereign Power.  

For example: A Rs.2000 note issued by the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) is a Bank- Note.  2. Coin: The term “Coin” was defined by (The Coinage Act,2011) under Section 2 which says that a  coin is a metal which can be used as money, stamped and issued by the state and intended to be  used as money. 

For example: Rs. 1 coin is valid example of the coins which are issued by the RBI.  3. Counterfeiting Government Stamp: This term “counterfeiting of stamp” not only means making a  fake stamp entirely but also alteration of a genuine stamp of one denomination to look like a  genuine stamp.

2 For example: Changing a Rs. 10 court fee stamp to look like a Rs. 100 stamp is counterfeiting.  4. Counterfeiting Coins: If a person intentionally causes deception or knows deception is likely to  cause and alters a genuine coin to make it a different coin. 

For example: Making a Rs. 5 coin to look like a Rs. 10 coin through polishing or embossing.  5. Altering Weight, Composition and Appearance: It not only include making a fake coin but also  reducing weight of the coin, changing metal composition and also changing its visual appearance.  For example: Removing metal from a coin (To get profit from its scrap)  

Case Laws: 

• K. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P.: The Court stated that knowing possession of counterfeit currency  is an offense and is punishable in accordance with law. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli: Supreme Court stated that the fictitious currency is  detrimental and must be viewed seriously as it strikes at the roots of the sovereignty of the State. 

Section 177: Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit coin,  Government stamp, currency-notes or bank notes. 

This section (replaces IPC Section 239/240), it was related to “the offence of fraudulent or  counterfeit instruments being used or dealt with when one knows they present to be genuine  instruments.” It focuses on punishing those that knowingly circulate, deal in or use forged coins,  stamps or currency in India. This provision plays an important part in protecting the integrity and  credence in the country’s revenue and financial systems. 

Essential Ingredients of the Offence 

1. Use or Trafficking: The person must have Sold or delivered to someone, Bought or received from  someone, or otherwise trafficked in or used any item listed below. 
2. Item to be forged: The section has related to the following forged or counterfeit items: • Coins (Indian or foreign), 

• Government stamps issued by the state for revenue purpose,  
• Currency notes or banknotes. 

3. Knowledge or Belief: The person must have had knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged  or counterfeit. You never need to have possession, mens rea (guilty mind) is required.

4. Act of Using as Genuine: The person must have used, dealt with, or passed off the item as if it  were genuine, combined with fraudulent intent, which is an intent to mislead the one that received  the item. 

Punishment 

• Life Imprisonment 
• Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) up to 10 years, 
• Fine (amount not specifically depend on the judicial discretion). 

Illustration  

Assume that X received a wad/bundle of currency notes from Y, knowing or having cause to know  that the notes are counterfeit. When X later used those same notes to make a purchase or gave them  to someone in order to obtain a good or service, X could be liable under Section 177. 

Section 178: Possession of forged or counterfeit coin, Government  stamp, currency-notes or bank-notes. 

This Section states “the offence of having possession of forged or counterfeit tools (instruments or  documents) which are commonly used as payment methods or revenue collection tools, such as  coins, revenue stamps issued by the government, etc. currency-notes, bank-notes etc. The offence  is constituted with the possession, with intent to use it as a genuine instrument. The legislation  provides that the person is committing an offense not only for the use of a forged or counterfeit  instruments, but also for being in possession of a forged or counterfeit instrument, as long as that  person knows, or has reason to believe, it is a forged or counterfeit instrument, and he or she  possessed it with the intent to use it as an authentic instrument.”  

Element of the Offense:  

1. 1. Possession: In order for an individual to be in possession of Forged or counterfeit coin; Forged  or counterfeit Government stamp; and forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note.  2. Knowledge or Reason to Believe: The alleged offender must know or have reason to believe the  item is forged or counterfeit. 
2. Intent to Use as Genuine: The possession must be with intent to use the item as genuine or to  cause it to be used as genuine.

4 

As a guideline, simple possession is not punishable under the section if the individual is not  provably aware or knowing of the possession and or intent. 

Punishment  

• Life imprisonment  
• Fine or it can be both  

Illustration  

A has in his possession a bundle of fake ₹500 notes. If A had any knowledge or reason to know  they were fake notes and he wanted to put them in circulation as such in the marketplace, A would  be liable under section 178. 

If A found them in the street and reported it to the police immediately after and it was clear he had  no intention of circulating those notes in the market, A would not be liable.  Relevant Case Law  

• State of Maharashtra v. Yusuf Khan  

The court states it is necessary for a conviction under provisions dealing with counterfeiting of  currency or stamps, that intention and knowledge must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.  • Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 

It was held that possession must show mens rea (guilty mind), and that innocent possession is not  an offence under such provisions. 

Section 179: Making or possessing instruments or materials for  forging or counterfeiting coin, Government stamp, currency notes or  bank-notes. 

This section deals with “a serious economic offence referring to manufacture, possession, sale or  disposal of any machine, instrument or material used for forging or counterfeiting currency, coins  or revenue stamps issued by the Government. This particular provision is preventive in character,  it looks to target people involved in a counterfeiting supply chain or infrastructure before any  forged currency or documents can be exchanged.” 

5 

Ingredients of the Offence 

1. Prohibited activities: The accused must make or perform any part of making, or repairing, or  Buy, Sell or dispose of, or have in possession.  

For example: Machinery, Die, Instrument or Material.  

2. Purpose or knowledge: The machine/instrument is intended to be used for forging or  counterfeiting. The person knows, or has reason to believe, will be used for this purpose. It is merely possessing an instrument, it is not punishable unless there is knowledge/intention, to  use it for counterfeiting, regardless of whether a person is just part of the supply chain. 3. Objects of Counterfeiting: This Section protects the integrity of Coins, Stamps issued by the  Government for revenue, Currency-notes and Bank-notes.  

Punishment 

• Life Imprisonment 
• Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) up to 10 years, • Fine  

Illustration  

If X sets up a workshop with printing presses to produce high-quality counterfeit ₹500 currency  notes (and knows they will be used to produce fake currency), X is liable under Section 179 BNS— even though they have not made any counterfeit notes yet. 

Similarly, if Y purchased specialized inks or foil, which can be used in the minting of coins (and  knows they will be used to produce fake coins), Y can also be punished under this section.  Case Laws 

• State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli (2000) 

It was held that possession of printing plates to create fake currency notes, is sufficient for  conviction even if it was not known whether any fake notes had actually been printed and the  person was simply in possession. 

• State of M.P. v. Kashiram (2009) 

It was held that the agreement and preparation are punishable by linking the making or preparation  of possession of apparatus to be used in forgery.

Section 180: Making or using documents resembling currency-notes  or bank-notes. 

This section deals with “the making, using or distributing of any document that resembles currency  notes or Bank notes to such an extent that it is likely to deceive a person into treating it as currency,  is an offence.” Section 180 has a significant role in maintaining confidence in the public’s money  system and in combating fraud and forgery or economic crimes more generally. This section is  also preventive in nature and aims to target fraudulent or misleading activities irrespective of  whether a fraud was actually committed or not. 

This sub-section (1): Making or Using Deceptive Currency-Like Documents • Creating a document that claims to be or resembles a currency-note or bank-note. • Conducting such a document, i.e., participating in or facilitating the process. • Using such a document for any purpose whether to advertise, market or personal use. • Delivering, by any means such document to another person. 

Punishment 

A fine may extend to Rs. 300.  

Illustration  

A person has a pamphlet printed that looks like a ₹500 note to promote a product. If the pamphlet,  in such a form, is similar to actual currency notes to the degree where the general public is likely  to be misled or confused as to its true nature, he may be liable to a penalty under this sub-section. Important Legal Point 

Even if a document does not visually appear as an exact replica of a currency note, if it “so nearly  resembles” the original to “be calculated to deceive”, the act is punishable. Sub-section (2): Refusal to Disclose Information About Printing This clause creates an obligation for persons whose name appears on a deceptive document. • When a police officer requires such a person to disclose, the name and address of the actual  

printer or maker of the document and the person refuses to disclose that information, without  lawful excuse then they were liable for punishment. 

Punishment  

Fine may be extend to Rs. 600

Legal Principle  

This sub section aims to detect the source and origin of the document. It also ensures the accused  to make cooperation with the police during the investigation. The non-cooperation will result in  punishment. 

Sub-section (3): Presumption of Involvement 

That is, if a person’s name is shown either; on the other document or on a document related to the  other document, the law presumes that he or she caused it to be made unless proven to the reverse. Consequences of this legal presumption: 

• The burden of proof on the accused. 
• Holding people accountable unless they can prove their innocence. 

Legal Maxim:  

“Res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself): The presence of their name is prima facie evidence  of the participation. 

Section 181 BNS: Effacing writing from substance bearing  Government stamp or removing from document a stamp used for it,  with intent to cause loss to Government.  

This section states that “the offences which tampers with revenue stamps issued by the  government.” This enactment seeks to uphold the interest of revenue to the government and to  prevent fraud in the financial transaction that entails relevant stamp duty. Section 181 replaces a  corresponding provision in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and continues the Indian law tradition of  penalizing acts intended towards the fraudulent reuse of government stamps. 

Elements of the offence 

1. Actus Reus (physical act): Effacing or removing writing or document from a material to which  the stamp was affixed, or removing a stamp from a document to which it has been used.  2. Mens Rea (mental element): The act needs to have been done fraudulently, or with a view to  causing loss to the government.  
2. Objective of the Act: To take reuse of the government stamp to a different document or writing  and avoid re-payment of stamp duty.

8 

Key Terms  

1. Effacing: An action performed to erase or remove writing to the point where the writing is  completely unreadable or to make the document reusable.  
2. Government Stamp: A government fiscal product, or stamp, that is issued by the government  to indicate that stamp duty has been paid, for transactions including, but not limited to, legal  and financial documents. 
3. Fraudulent Intent: Any deceitful or dishonest intent to defraud, or cheat, the government and  withhold revenue. 

Punishment  

• Imprisonment of either kind (simple or rigorous) for a term not exceeding three years, or  • Fine, or  
• Both imprisonment and fine. 

Illustration  

Let’s say a man buys a property and does the agreement on a ₹1,000 stamp paper and once the  transaction is done, he erases the writing of the stamp paper through chemicals or physical effacing  and then he reuses that same stamp paper for a different transaction. This action is an offence under  Section 181 BNS because: 

1. it is an effacing of a used stamp.  
2. it was done in order to not incur fresh stamp duty.  
3. it causes monetary loss to the government. 

Section 182: Using Government stamp known to have been before  used.  

This section deals “The fraudulent use of already used government stamps. This provision intends  to protect the collection of revenues for the government while also punishing dishonest individuals  who reuse stamps to avoid payment of legal dues and obligations.”  

Elements of the Offence 

1. Fraudulent Intent or Intent to Cause Loss to Government: The offender must act with fraudulent  intent (i.e., to deceive) or an intent to cause loss to the government.

2. Government Revenue Stamp: The stamp used must be a government stamp used for revenue  such as those on legal documents, court fees, property registrations etc. 
3. Knowledge that Stamp was Previously Used: The person must have knowledge that the stamp  had been used before. Innocent, or accidental, use without knowledge may not incur liability under  this section.  
4. Used for Any Purpose: If a reused stamp is used for a non-governmental or private purpose, it  will still fall within the purview of this section provided the intent to defraud exists. Punishment 

• Imprisonment of either kind (rigorous or simple) of up to two years,  
• Fine, or 
• Both (Imprisonment and fine) 

Illustration  

Let us say someone files a document that they know has a past-used fee court-stamp on it from a  previous case. If they do this with the intent of avoiding paying the appropriate required fee by  using a past court stamp, that person can be prosecuted under Section 182 BNS. 

Section 183: Erasure of mark denoting that stamp has been used.  This section was related to “the fraudulent erasure or removal of cancellation marks where they  relate to affirmed revenue stamps.” The rationale for this section is to ensure the integrity of the  Government’s revenue system is maintained with upstanding punishments for those who engage  in the prohibited act of reusing the same stamps and cheating the Government out of funds. Essential Ingredients of the Offence 

1. Fraudulent Intent or Intent to Cause Loss to Government: The act must be committed with  intent; the act is fraudulent if done deliberately and dishonestly. or, if done with the intent of  causing loss to the Government.  
2. Erasure or Removal of a Mark: The accused must have erased or removed a mark on the  revenue stamp issued by a government agency. The mark usually indicates that the Government  stamp, has already been used. For example: perforations, initials and ink marks. 
3. Possession or Sale of Tampered Stamps: Whether possessing or selling, tampering with or  removing the cancellation mark of a stamp is punishable. It is also an offence to sell, or  otherwise dispose of a government stamp, if the seller knows it has been used, even if the mark  is not erased.  

Punishment 

Imprisonment: up to three years (simple or rigorous), 

Fine, or 

Imprisonment and fine. 

Illustration 

For example, one person takes an old revenue stamp that has already been used, wipes off the ink  to remove the evidence that it had already been used with the intention to reuse it and avoid stamp  duty. He shall be punished according to section 183. 

Alternatively, even if someone is caught selling used stamps knowing that they are being sold as  previously used, (even if he did not wipe off the evidence), he will still be liable under this section. 

1. Offences Related to Government Stamps (Section 184-186)  

Section 184: Prohibition of fictitious stamps 

The Indian Post Office Act 1898 has many provisions regulating postal services in India. One of  these, Section 184 of BNS is an important tool for fighting fraud and guarding the integrity of  postal communications. It does this by providing a mechanism for the prosecution and punishment  of anyone who uses or publishes fictitious postage stamps. 

This section aims “to prevent the manufacture, possession and use of counterfeit postage stamps”  which are false representations or stamps that purport to have been issued by the government. BNS  classifies postage stamps as exhibiting proof of payment for a postal service. The existence of  counterfeit postage stamps can cause loss of revenue to the government which can defeat the  purpose of revenue generation or undermine confidence in the postal system. 

Sub-section (1): Acts Punishable Under This Section 

1. Making, Uttering, Dealing, Selling or Using Fictitious Stamps:  

• Anyone who makes, except with permission, knowingly utters, deals in, sells or uses a  fictitious stamp for postal purposes is punishable.

11 

• The use of “knowingly” when relating to four separate actions, suggests that mens rea (guilty  mind) is required to prosecute an offence in relation to this clause. 

1. Possession Without Lawful Excuse:  

• Possession of any fictitious stamp “without lawful excuse” is an offence.  • It is up to the accused to establish that they had a lawful excuse.  

1. Making or Possession of Instruments to Make Fictitious Stamps:  

This clause makes it an offence to make or possess dies, plates, instruments or materials used to  make fictitious stamps unless they have a lawful excuse. 

Punishment 

Fine up to ₹200, which seems small today, but was intended to be a deterrent when the Act was  made. (This is a bailable offence)  

Sub-Section (2): Seizure and forfeiture 

• Authorities may seize any fictitious stamps or equipment used to make them that is found on a  person. Once seized, it may be forfeited, as both a penalty and a deterrent. 
• Once seized, it may be forfeited, as both a penalty and a preventive measure. Sub-section (3): Definition of Fictitious Stamp 
• A fictitious stamp includes any stamp falsely purporting to have been issued by the  Government for postage or any likeness or imitation or representation to be a genuine stamp  of that Government. 
• This is meant to include not just direct duplicates but also forgeries of similar stamps to give  wide scope to combat postal offending.  

Sub-section (4): Definition of “Government” 

• The term “government” includes both Indian and non-Indian Governments. • This definition is essential for international collaboration requesting the prosecution of  offences regarding foreign postage stamps. 
• This definition applies to all relevant sections in relation to this section (Sections 176-179,  181-183) to establish consistent interpretation.

Section 185: Person employed in mint causing coin to be of different  weight or composition from that fixed by law. 

This section is related to “offences by employees of the mint who purposely modify the weight or  composition of coins.” Section 185 is significant because it helps preserve the integrity and  stability of the country’s currency. Coins are part of legal tender and any modification at the mint  is a direct attack on public faith and order in the economy.  

Essential Ingredients of the Offence 

(a) Employment in a Legitimately Established Mint 

The perpetrator must have had formal employment at a mint licensed by the government. This  element differentiates offences under this section from counterfeiting or alterations the public may  undertake.  

(b) Act or Omission 

The perpetrator must have either: 

• Done an act that he is not authorized to do, or  
• Failed to do something he has a legal obligation to perform.  

Example: Changing the ratio of metals or using flawed weighing methods at minting. (c) Intention to Change Legal Standards 

• The act/omission must have been done with the specific intention of changing the weight or  composition of the coin.  
• Mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential ingredient. In this section there must be a deliberate  intention, absolute negligence or a simple mistake may not be caught by this section. Punishment  

Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term up to 7 years. Fine 

This reflects the seriousness of the breach of trust by a mint employee. 

Illustrations (Hypothetical Cases) 

A mint employee purposely put more copper in a batch of ₹10 coins to reduce silver. He is liable  under section 185. 

13 

Constitutional and Legal Principles Involved 

• Doctrine of Public Trust: Mint employees have fiduciary obligations to the state and its  citizens.  
• Criminal Breach of Duty: Intentional negligence in such vital services is prohibited by law for  the purpose of the public interest.  
• Presumption of Mens Rea: The prosecution must prove the mental element of the act or  omission. 

Section 186: Unlawfully taking coining instrument from mint. This Section deals with “a specific and serious offence of taking coining tools from a government authorized mint.” This provision protects and regulates the production of currency in India against  wrongful extraction or intention to use coinage tools from a Mint.  

A mint or coinage facility, is a high security facility where currency is produced. Any harm to the  production of currency can create chaos for economic stability, financial trust and faith that some  level of security exists in the Minting system of currency. 

Essential Elements of the Offence 

(a) Act of Taking 

There is an act of removal or taking away. This could include taking or removing (physically) tools  such as coining dies, punches, stamps, moulds or other minting tools. 

(b) From a Lawfully Established Mint in India 

The mint must be an official mint recognized by the Government of India. Applies to tools taking  place from mints only and not from private businesses. 

(c) Without Lawful Authority 

The “taking” must be unauthorized or without lawful permission. However, if the individual is  authorized by some law or regulation, then offence is not committed. 

(d) Mens Rea Indirectly Involved 

Although the section does not refer expressly to mens rea, in that it is not included in this section,  the unlawful and unauthorized aspect of the taking would infer criminal intent existed. Punishment 

• Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) up to seven years.

• Fine  

This demonstrates the gravity of the offence, as the misuse of coining instruments can directly  facilitate counterfeiting, a major economic crime. 

Related Legal Provisions 

• Section 185 BNS: Deals with tampering with coin weight/composition inside the mint. • Sections 176 to 184 BNS: Deal with various offences relating to counterfeit coins and  instruments. 

Illustration  

An employee of the Kolkata Mint secretly removes the steel die used to mint ₹5 coins and gives it  to an outsider. He would be guilty under Section 186 BNS.