Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture
Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 256, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 218 Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public servant framing an incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment, or property from forfeiture. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Causing disappearance of evidence; appellant was charged under this section
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, 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: Improper conduct by public servant
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, 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: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to cause wrongful conviction; conviction set aside
-
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, particularly where charges rest on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion (such as forensic handwriting analysis), the court must distinguish between proof beyond reasonable doubt and mere suspicion or probability. While hospital records showing interpolations and missing pages may indicate tampering, and while one individual's (Dr. Ravinder Kaur's) direct involvement in issuing false admission slips may be established through credible witness testimony, the involvement of other staff members in a conspiracy to forge records cannot be inferred from handwriting matches alone without clinching evidence of their guilty mind and knowledge of the conspiracy. The standard of proof required in criminal law is significantly higher than establishing suspicion; each accused must be judged on individual evidence establishing their participation in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Further, charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requiring abuse of official position for illegal gratification cannot be sustained without explicit evidence of demand and acceptance of such gratification.
On this section: Negligence and misconduct by public servant in official duty - Applied to public sector healthcare workers who falsified hospital records in course of their employment.
-
Jasbir Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely a preponderance of probabilities. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be based on handwriting expert evidence alone without clinching corroborating evidence of guilty mind and direct participation in the criminal act. A public servant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of taking or obtaining pecuniary advantage or illicit benefit, which cannot be presumed without explicit evidence. Direct evidence of participation and guilty mind is essential to convict co-accused in conspiracy cases, especially where circumstantial evidence does not establish their individual culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Applied for making false entries in official records - conviction upheld for staff nurses who made false hospital entries under instigation of Dr. Ravinder Kaur
-
Balwinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, not mere suspicion or preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt only when the circumstances are of clinching nature and directly point to guilt. Handwriting expert analysis has corroborative value but cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Each accused must have their individual culpability established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion arising from involvement in conspiracy does not warrant conviction. For conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pecuniary advantage is an essential ingredient and must be established. Inquiry reports containing hearsay evidence are not sufficient for conviction unless the persons whose version formed the basis of the inquiry are examined and cross-examined.
On this section: Misconduct in office by public servant; applied to hospital staff involved in forging official medical records
-
BALA GANESAN vs RAVICHANDRAN
Decided under Indian Penal Code 218, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal complaint remains pending for an extended period with the prosecution witness failing to appear despite multiple opportunities and the complainant showing no interest in prosecuting the case, the court may dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution under Section 256 CrPC, particularly when the case exceeds the Supreme Court's guideline of 2 years for closing prosecution evidence in cases punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.
On this section: The original charges against the accused were under Sections 218 and 219 IPC, which relate to public servants framing incorrect records or making false entries.
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 256
What have the courts held on Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 218, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Causing disappearance of evidence; appellant was charged under this section. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
Is Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
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 256 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 256, section 256 BNS, section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 256 2 and bns 256 1. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024).
What should I read with Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 256 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 256, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.