Falsification of accounts
Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with falsification of accounts. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the pos The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.—It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed.
Section 344, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 477A Falsification of accounts Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Falsification of accounts. | Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both. | Non-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.
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 477A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Defines falsification of accounts; requires proof that accused wilfully and with intent to defraud destroyed, altered, or falsified books or accounts; Court held that intent to defraud contains elements of deceit and injury, both of which must be proved
-
J. Ramesh Kamath vs Mohana Kurup
Decided under Indian Penal Code 477A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal charges involving misappropriation of organizational funds by office bearers in positions of fiduciary trust cannot be characterized as purely personal or civil disputes amenable to quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on settlement agreements, even when accepted by all parties including complaining members and current office bearers. The High Court must refuse to quash criminal proceedings in such cases because they involve crimes of breach of trust against the organization and society, and the timing of settlement after completion of investigation and charge-sheet filing demands that the trial court be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on evidence presented at trial. The distinction between Section 320 (compounding) and Section 482 (inherent jurisdiction) does not permit circumvention of the principles that serious offences involving breach of organizational trust and fiduciary duty are not amenable to settlement, regardless of whether all parties subsequently agree to compromise.
On this section: Falsification of accounts and records - applied to the charge of altering, destroying, and mutilating account books of the association
-
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 477A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases involving heinous or serious offences, corruption, or moral turpitude by a candidate in the affidavit filed with nomination papers constitutes undue influence and corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, as it directly interferes with the free exercise of electoral right by depriving voters of their fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates, thereby preventing them from making informed and advised electoral choices. Once such non-disclosure is established in an election petition, the election must be declared null and void under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act without requiring proof that the result was materially affected.
On this section: Falsification of accounts, charges against appellant
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 477A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Falsification of accounts - applied in context of falsified shipping bills register
-
K.S. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 477A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2015-06-19 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A. 1893/2004. P. Ubaid J. Isolates IPC 477A: a public-servant cashier’s willful omission to enter receipts in the SOP-6 cash register, with intent to defraud and to misappropriate, is falsification of accounts; later restitution of the amount does not wipe the offence. Conviction under 477A (with 409 / PC Act 13) confirmed; sentence reduced. Carry bns 344 successor (mapping.csv near-identical 0.9291). Do not pad ipc 409 (already filled).
On this section: BNS 344 (falsification of accounts) succeeds IPC 477A: willful omission to enter receipts with intent to defraud is the offence; later restitution does not wipe it (K.S. Kuriakose).
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 344
What have the courts held on Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi (13 Dec 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 477A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Defines falsification of accounts; requires proof that accused wilfully and with intent to defraud destroyed, altered, or falsified books or accounts; Court held that intent to defraud contains elements of deceit and injury, both of which must be proved. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2021.
Is Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 344 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 344 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 344, section 344 BNS, section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type 344 bns in ipc and 344 bns punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi (13 Dec 2021).
What should I read with Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 477A (Falsification of accounts), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 344, 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.