Section233
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Using evidence known to be false

In force From 01 Jul 2024 Act 45 of 2023 As on 15 Oct 2026

Act 45 of 2023 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 25 Dec 2023 In force 01 Jul 2024 Cited by 6 provisions

Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with using evidence known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.

Section 233, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).

Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code

IPC 196 Using evidence known to be false Text carried over almost unchanged 100%

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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.

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.

OffencePunishment CognizableBailableTriable by
Using in a judicial proceeding evidence known to be false or fabricated. The same as for giving or fabricating false evidence. Non-cognizable. According as offence of giving such evidence is bailable or non-triable. bailable. Court by which offence of giving or fabricating false evidence is

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

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.

  1. Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan

    High Court 05 Mar 2019 Persuasive (Other HC)

    Decided under Indian Penal Code 196, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    For prosecution of a public servant (police officer) for offences under Sections 193, 195, and 196 IPC (relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings), a written complaint from the court in relation to which the offences were committed is mandatory under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Additionally, for prosecution under Sections 166 and 167 IPC for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duty, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority is necessary. Absence of these procedural requirements renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be set aside.

    On this section: Offence of using evidence known to be false. Court held that prosecution requires written complaint from the court in relation to which offence was committed.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

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.

Questions about Section 233

What have the courts held on Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan (05 Mar 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 196, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Offence of using evidence known to be false. Court held that prosecution requires written complaint from the court in relation to which offence was committed.

Is Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?

According as offence of giving such evidence is bailable or non-triable. bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Is Section 233 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 Court by which offence of giving or fabricating false evidence is.

How do I find court cases under Section 233 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 233, section 233 BNS, section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 233 1 in hindi and 233 bns punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan (05 Mar 2019).

What should I read with Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?

6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 196 (Using evidence known to be false), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.

When did Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?

Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 233, 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

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.