Evidence of officers of the Mint
Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with evidence of officers of the Mint. Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such gazetted officer of the Mint or of the India Security Press (including the office of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery) as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submit The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such gazetted officer of the Mint or of the India Security Press (including the office of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery) as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such officer is not called as a witness.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such officer as to the subject-matter of his report:
Provided that no such officer shall be summoned to produce any records on which the report is based.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no such officer shall, except with the permission of the Master of the Mint or the India Security Press or the Controller of Stamps and Stationery, as the case may be, be permitted-
(a) to give any evidence derived from any unpublished official records on which the report is based ; or
(b) to disclose the nature or particulars of any test applied by him in the course of the examination of the matter or thing.
Section 292, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 328 Evidence of officers of Mint Text carried over almost unchanged 86%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
P.v.ramana Murthy vs State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While Section 292 Cr.P.C. permits admission of expert reports without calling the expert as a witness, the admissibility and proof of such documents must still be in accordance with the procedure established under law. The trial court has the discretion to mark the document but must ultimately determine its admissibility and proof at the judgment stage. If a document is not properly proved in accordance with legal procedure, it cannot be relied upon by the court, and marking it would be a futile exercise. The accused retains the right to examine the expert in defence.
On this section: Admissibility of expert reports and opinions in evidence without necessarily calling the expert as a witness
-
Ugranarain Rai vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere possession of currency notes, even if they are counterfeit, does not constitute an offence under Sections 489B and 489C IPC unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the notes with knowledge or with reason to believe that they were counterfeit. Additionally, a preliminary opinion from the Reserve Bank of India is not admissible under Section 292 Cr.P.C. to establish that currency notes are counterfeit; only the final opinion from the authorized mint at Dewas, Madhya Pradesh is admissible for this purpose. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish each and every ingredient of the offence through admissible evidence, and circumstantial evidence or preliminary expert opinions are insufficient to sustain a conviction for counterfeiting offences.
On this section: Admissibility of expert opinion - only opinion from authorized mint (Dewas, Madhya Pradesh) is admissible for determining genuineness of currency notes; RBI preliminary opinion is not admissible for final determination
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.
-
… The Magistrate is not to enter into the detailed discussion of the merit or demerit of the case nor can the High Court can go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction, which is a limited one This Court considered the scope of inquiry under section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extremely limited purpose of which is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegation. - 14.1 Here is not the case were the Court is required to exercise the powers of revision as urged by Mr. Patel and, hence, this will not apply. - 15 In the case of Harnam Singh vs. …
-
… It is material to note that Sections 292 and 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provide in what circumstances and whose reports may be admitted in evidence without examining the concerned expert. Under section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such Gazetted Officer of the Mint or any of Note Printing Press or of any Security Printing Press or of any Forensic Department or Division of Forensic Science Laboratory or any Government Examiner of questioned documents …
-
… He brought to my notice that it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the said certificate though it was not necessary to examine an Officer from the mint in view of the provisions of section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the production of the said certificate, the trial Court was bound to exhibit the same. He further submitted that apart from the non production of the certificate from the mint, the prosecution had not produced any independent witness to prove the possession of the alleged …
Questions about Section 292
What have the courts held on Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
P.v.ramana Murthy vs State of A.p. (11 Sep 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Admissibility of expert reports and opinions in evidence without necessarily calling the expert as a witness. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2011 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 292, section 292 CRPC, section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with P.v.ramana Murthy vs State of A.p. (11 Sep 2018).
What should I read with Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Evidence Act 123 (Evidence as to affairs of State), Indian Evidence Act 124 (Official communications), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 328 (Evidence of officers of Mint), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 292, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.