Section205
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution

Repealed From 01 Jan 1862 Act 45 of 1860 As on 16 Oct 2026

Act 45 of 1860 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 06 Oct 1860 In force 01 Jan 1862 Cited by 3 provisions

This provision is repealed. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024. It is reproduced because conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.

Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution. Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descript 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 205, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).

Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

BNS 242 False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.

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. Benson vs State of Kerala

    Supreme Court of India 03 Oct 2016 Persuasive (Supreme Court Judgment) - Establishes binding precedent for all lowe Reportable 2016 (1) SCC (Criminal) [Reportable]

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.

    On this section: Offence of causing disappearance of evidence - applied in case CC 274/06

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Benson vs State of Kerala

    Supreme Court of India 03 Oct 2016 Persuasive (Other High Court) / Binding (SC) Reportable Reportable (as indicated by 't\1771 Reportable' in the order header)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.

    On this section: Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of past offence - cited in one case

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  3. Benson vs State of Kerala

    Supreme Court of India 03 Oct 2016 Persuasive (Binding within Indian Judicial Hierarchy) Reportable t/1771 Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.

    On this section: Offence of acting with intent to cause wrongful loss - mentioned in prison records for one earlier crime (CC 274/06) but not directly analyzed

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  4. S.syed Basha vs The State of A.p.

    High Court 05 Feb 2020 Persuasive (Other High Court)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Criminal Procedure Code applies only to offences under Sections 193-196, 199, 200, 205-211, and 228 IPC when committed in court proceedings, and to forgery offences under Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC when committed in respect of documents in court proceedings. Impersonation under Section 419 IPC is not covered by this bar. Therefore, a Magistrate has the authority to try and convict a person for impersonation under Section 419 IPC even when committed in relation to court proceedings. The restrictions under Section 352 CrPC do not apply to Section 419 IPC offences once the Section 195 bar is found inapplicable.

    On this section: Giving false evidence - A1 acquitted for this offence; bar under Section 195 CrPC applied

    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 205

What have the courts held on Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code?

Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of causing disappearance of evidence - applied in case CC 274/06. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2020.

How do I find court cases under Section 205 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 205, section 205 IPC, section 205 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016).

What should I read with Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?

3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 242 (False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.

When did Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?

Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 205, 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

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.