Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury
Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury. Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 167, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 201 Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Union of India . Cabinet Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Rule 135 of R&AW (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975 is constitutionally valid as: (1) it derives authority from Article 309 (conditions of service) not Article 311 (penal actions); (2) compulsory retirement is non-penal administrative action not involving loss of accrued benefits, stigma, or punishment; (3) expressions 'exposure' and 'security' are sufficiently clear in context of intelligence organization and not vague; (4) no prior inquiry or natural justice principles mandated by Rule or by Article 311 as these apply only to penal actions; (5) preliminary inquiry, though advisable, not required; (6) where Rule 135 ingredients satisfied at highest decision-making level after deliberations, invocation is legal and lawful; (7) 'may' in Rule 135 Subrule (2) must be read as 'shall' for granting pension benefits; (8) pension calculated from notional superannuation date reflecting non-punitive character; (9) Rule operates as special provision taking precedence over general provisions like FR 56(j) under lex specialis doctrine.
On this section: Alleged by appellant to have been violated by committee members; Court found no sanction warranted due to absence of malafides
-
Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan
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 framing false evidence. Court held that even if petitioner wrongly recorded statements, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary as act was in discharge of official duty.
-
Basant Ku.nanda vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An anticipatory bail application becomes infructuous and should be disposed of when the chargesheet has already been filed, the investigation has been closed under Section 168 Cr.P.C., and there is no reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioner, as confirmed by the Investigating Officer.
On this section: Wrongful confinement or related offence - alleged offence against petitioner
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.
-
… Union of India & Anr.[38]( page-68-0) .The appellant, in her complaint, had levelled allegations against the private respondents of having committed offences under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") by forging the report of the Committee constituted to inquire into the appellant's complaint of sexual harassment. The trial court refused to issue summons to the private respondents for the lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and the High Court …
Questions about Section 167
What have the courts held on Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code?
Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Union of India . Cabinet Secretary (24 Apr 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Alleged by appellant to have been violated by committee members; Court found no sanction warranted due to absence of malafides. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 167, section 167 IPC, section 167 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Union of India . Cabinet Secretary (24 Apr 2020).
What should I read with Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 201 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 167, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.