Punishment for false evidence
Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with punishment for false evidence. Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
(2) Whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court.
Illustration.
A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.
Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court.
Illustration.
A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.
Section 229, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 193 Punishment for false evidence Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 10
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 531
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act s. 239 District Planning Committee
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act s. 124 Enquiries and proceedings
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act s. 142 Repeal and savings
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act s. 35 Formal and summary inquiry to be deemed judicial proceedings
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act s. 202 Repeal and Savings
- Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act s. 10 Inquiries and proceedings to be judicial proceedings
- Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act s. 12 Repeal and savings
- Maharashtra Lokayukta Act s. 35 Lokayukta to have powers of civil court in certain cases
- National Sports Governance Act s. 24 Powers of Tribunal
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. | Imprisonment for 7 years and 10,000 rupees. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Giving or fabricating false evidence in any other case. | Imprisonment for 3 years and 5,000 rupees. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-9.pdf 2021-08-03. CA 4821/2012 + CA 6171/2012. Ramana/Bopanna/Roy. DATE-CHECK flagged 2012-06-01 / 2008 election dates (false positive); digital signature 2021.08.03; body is the named reportable. Contradictory statements are not perjury under IPC 193 without intentional falsehood and 340 expediency. Set aside the HC direction to prosecute Returning Officer Ashok Mensinkai. Map ipc 193 only. Do not pad CrPC 340 (already filled) or RP Act 100 (infructuous).
On this section: Successor of IPC 193 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9537). The intentional-falsehood perjury ingredient carries to BNS 229.
-
Ethiopian Airlines vs Ganesh Narain Saboo
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings before Consumer Forums constitute 'suits' within the ordinary and generic meaning of the word, and such proceedings fall within the sweep of special Acts like Carriage by Air Act 1972 and Consumer Protection Act 1986. However, Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding sovereign immunity of foreign states is inapplicable to consumer forum proceedings because: (1) Consumer Protection Act 1986 explicitly enumerates only limited CPC provisions as applicable through Section 13(4), (5), (6), and expressio unius principle excludes all other CPC provisions including Section 86; (2) As a special statute addressing specific subject matter with own procedures coming after general CPC 1908, Consumer Protection Act overrides conflicting CPC provisions; (3) Carriage by Air Act 1972 provides that high contracting parties to Warsaw Convention 1929 are deemed to have submitted to jurisdiction of Indian courts for carriage disputes, and Ethiopia as high contracting party since 1950 is covered by this deeming provision; (4) Participation in international commerce through accession to Warsaw Convention constitutes express waiver of sovereign immunity by foreign states. Consequently, Ethiopian Airlines as a state-owned entity engaged in commercial carriage activities cannot claim sovereign immunity against consumer protection proceedings and no Central Government consent is required for consumer to pursue complaint in Indian consumer forums.
On this section: Section 13(5) of Consumer Protection Act deems consumer forum proceedings to be judicial proceedings within meaning of IPC Sections 193 and 228 relating to perjury and contempt
-
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant blanket anticipatory bail protecting an accused from arrest for any non-bailable offence, nor can it impose conditions such as prior notice before arrest on the statutory power of arrest vested in investigating authorities under section 104 of Customs Act. Anticipatory bail must be specific to identified offence(s), based on applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and cannot include conditions that interfere with or obstruct the legitimate investigative authority and statutory powers of arrest. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be exercised within statutory limits and cannot be used to impose judicial obstacles to investigation.
On this section: Provisions establishing that inquiry under section 108 Customs Act is deemed judicial proceeding, thereby imposing obligation to state truth and making false statements cognizable offences.
-
John D Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The scope of enquiry by a Labour Court or Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited and operates in two phases: (1) If the domestic enquiry is not defective and has not violated principles of natural justice, the Labour Court/Tribunal need only examine the record of the domestic enquiry to determine whether a prima facie case for dismissal has been made out and whether the employer came to a bona fide conclusion without unfair labour practice or victimization; approval must follow if these conditions are satisfied. (2) If the domestic enquiry suffers from defects or violation of natural justice, the Labour Court/Tribunal may permit parties to adduce evidence and independently examine whether the dismissal was justified. The Labour Court/Tribunal cannot mechanically permit evidence without first finding the enquiry defective. Approval under Section 33(2)(b) merely removes the statutory ban on dismissal during pendency of proceedings and does not validate the order of dismissal; the workman retains the right to raise an industrial dispute challenging the dismissal even after approval is granted under Section 33(2)(b).
On this section: Enquiry/investigation by Labour Court/Tribunal deemed judicial proceeding
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Offence of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings; cited as basis for FIR registration
-
Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil vs Bar Council of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bar Council of India, when exercising original jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings automatically transferred to it under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 due to non-disposal by State Bar Council within one year, cannot remand such proceedings back to the State Bar Council. The Bar Council of India is obliged to conduct the inquiry and dispose of the case on merits as if it were a proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under Section 36(2), and the power to remand is available only when Bar Council of India exercises appellate jurisdiction under Section 37, not when exercising original jurisdiction under Section 36B(1). The statutory transfer by operation of law confers original jurisdiction on Bar Council of India, and the legislative intent is that the complaint shall be finally decided by Bar Council of India and not sent back to State Bar Council.
On this section: Proceedings before Disciplinary Committee deemed judicial proceedings under these sections
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Punishment for false evidence
-
Corporation Bank vs Masood Ahmed Khan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A quasi-judicial authority vested with substantial judicial powers (such as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) cannot dismiss appeals or revision petitions by merely affirming lower court orders without providing reasoned explanations for its decision. Every quasi-judicial forum exercising powers akin to a civil court must record detailed, rational, and substantive reasons for its conclusions, showing the nexus between facts/materials considered and the legal conclusions reached. Mere affirmation or cryptic orders are violations of natural justice and administrative law principles. Additionally, when a party files a separate appeal before a multi-party forum, that party has the right to independent hearing and consideration; dismissing the appeal without independent analysis violates the right to fair hearing. The requirement to record reasons is mandatory and is as fundamental to quasi-judicial decision-making as observing principles of natural justice.
On this section: Proceedings before Commission treated as judicial proceedings under IPC
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Punishment for giving false evidence; charged but not separately discussed
-
T. Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. of A. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Administrative Tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 possess the constitutional and statutory power under Article 323-A(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Act to punish for contempt of themselves. This power is not rendered unconstitutional or otiose by the L. Chandra Kumar judgment. Although Administrative Tribunals are subordinate to High Courts for purposes of Articles 226/227 (judicial review and judicial superintendence), such subordination pertains to judicial supervision of tribunal decisions on substantive matters within Section 14(1), and does not extinguish the tribunal's independent contempt jurisdiction conferred by Article 323-A(2)(b) and Section 17. Orders of tribunals punishing for contempt are appealable exclusively to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act) within 60 days, and not subject to High Court's Articles 226/227 jurisdiction. The distinction between jurisdictional conferment and subordination is critical: transfer of jurisdiction from High Court to tribunal makes the tribunal an additional or supplemental forum exercising the same jurisdiction in matters falling within Section 14(1), but does not assign the tribunal constitutional status equivalent to a High Court. Contempt jurisdiction, essential for enforcing tribunal orders and maintaining judicial dignity, is protected by the constitutional scheme and is necessary for the effective functioning of administrative tribunals as alternative, fast-track adjudicatory systems.
On this section: Sections 228 pertains to contempt of court. The Court noted that Section 30 of Administrative Tribunals Act makes tribunal proceedings subject to these penal provisions, but this does not exclude the contempt jurisdiction under Section 17
-
Madras High Court Advocates Association vs Dr. A. S. Anand, Hon'ble the C. J. I.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person, particularly a member of the legal profession bound by oath, makes a false statement in an affidavit filed in support of judicial proceedings, knowing such statement to be false or not believing it to be true, and such statement is material to the issues before the court, the person is prima facie guilty of perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. This holds even if the false statement relates to a matter that was previously determined by competent constitutional authority, provided the person had knowledge of such prior determination through judicial proceedings or official communications. Courts possess suo moto powers to initiate criminal prosecution for such perjury to maintain the sanctity and integrity of judicial proceedings.
On this section: Punishment for giving false evidence - the court directed prosecution under this section for the respondent's false affidavit, with the understanding that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191
-
Central Board of Trustees vs Hari Darshan Singh Bko
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Commissioner determining moneys due from an employer under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 must conduct an independent inquiry himself and cannot solely rely on a report submitted by an Enforcement Officer or Inspector. The Commissioner must follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 7A, including providing reasonable opportunity to the employer to represent his case and produce evidence. An ex parte assessment based solely on an Enforcement Officer's report, without the Commissioner conducting a proper inquiry, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) are mandatory in EPF proceedings.
On this section: The court noted that proceedings under Section 7A are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of these sections of IPC.
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deponent in a judicial proceeding, particularly a police officer who is a party to the suit, is fully aware that disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed in connection with the very incident that is subject matter of the suit are highly relevant to the case, and such deponent deliberately denies the existence of such punishment when specifically questioned during cross-examination, knowing such denial to be false, a prima facie case is made out for investigating alleged false evidence under Section 193 IPC. It is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC in such circumstances, as the false evidence goes to the credibility and integrity of the witness and the administration of justice itself.
On this section: Offence of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings; applied to determine whether petitioner's denial of censure constitutes false evidence
-
David John vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a witness is prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 IPC following a trial, and an appeal is pending against the decision in the main judicial proceeding (filed by parties to the main case, not by the witness under Section 341 CrPC), the trial court must stay the perjury proceedings until the appellate court disposes of the appeal. This is because the appellate court may accept the witness's testimony as truthful, and allowing the perjury conviction to proceed would create an anomalous situation where the witness is convicted for perjury despite the higher court finding their testimony credible. Section 343(2) CrPC provides the legal basis for such adjournment.
On this section: Defines the offence of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings; cited as the basis for perjury prosecution
-
Nar Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, which restricts prosecution of forgery and related offences, applies only when such offences are committed in relation to proceedings in a court or when documents are forged after being given in custodia legis (court custody). When forged documents are created before being filed in court, Section 195(1)(b) does not apply, and a Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offences without requiring the restrictions prescribed under Section 195 CrPC.
On this section: Offences against public justice and relating to court proceedings - subject of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC restriction
-
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant, including a judge, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 166, and 167 IPC (offences committable only by public servants), previous sanction of the appropriate Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C is a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of such offences. Additionally, judicial acts performed by judges in exercise of their judicial powers are protected by Section 77 IPC, and official actions taken pursuant to judicial orders are protected by Section 78 IPC. Private criminal complaints against judges for acts performed in their judicial capacity are not maintainable, and the proper remedy is through appellate courts, not collateral criminal proceedings.
On this section: Offences relating to false evidence and false statements; court held Section 195 Cr.P.C bars cognizance without written complaint from concerned court
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Penal Code, 1860, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false <span id="page-26-0"></span><sup>6</sup> (2001) 5 SCC 289 <span id="page-26-1"></span><sup>7</sup> Corresponds to Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily …
Questions about Section 229
What have the courts held on Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh (03 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 193, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 193 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9537). The intentional-falsehood perjury ingredient carries to BNS 229. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2024.
Is Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 229, section 229 BNS, section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 229 and 267 and bns 229 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh (03 Aug 2021).
What should I read with Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
10 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 193 (Punishment for false evidence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 229, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.