Personation of a juror or assessor
Section 229 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with personation of a juror or assessor. Whoever, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
CHAPTER XII
OF OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS
CHAPTER XII
OF OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS
Section 229, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 268 Personation of assessor Close, with changes 79%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Atul Sen vs State of H.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petition seeking quashing of judicial orders is not maintainable when the prayer clause seeks relief against orders directing FIR registration under Section 229 IPC, but the actual operative orders (as corrected by the trial court) direct FIR registration under Section 229A IPC. The petitioner must file a fresh petition specifically challenging the corrected operative order to maintain the petition. The principle of 'relief cannot exceed prayer clause' applies strictly to maintain procedural integrity.
On this section: Fabricating false evidence; court noted this section cannot be basis for FIR registration in bail jumping context
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in court; imposed as condition for bail violation
-
Bichitra Mohanty vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When criminal charges are substantially altered after a guilty plea and conviction, the original guilty plea cannot be allowed to remain as it would violate the accused's right to fair trial. A guilty plea is valid only for the specific offences for which it was made, and if those offences are changed to substantially different and more serious offences, the accused must be permitted to withdraw the plea and contest the new charges on merits. The procedure for accepting a guilty plea must be strictly followed, and the plea must be voluntary and made with full understanding of the implications of the specific offences charged.
On this section: Framing of charge - procedural requirement for valid guilty plea
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: Proceedings for non-appearance before court; mentioned in bail conditions as consequence of absence without sufficient cause
-
Sunil Pandey vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When witness statements recorded during investigation under Section 180 CrPC establish that the alleged victim's death was accidental rather than resulting from criminal acts alleged by the prosecution, and the trial court has failed to consider such evidence in rejecting a bail application, the appellate court should set aside the bail rejection and grant bail to the appellant, particularly where the appellant has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
On this section: Bail condition: trial court may proceed against appellant for non-appearance without sufficient cause
-
SANJEEV@BITTU vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving proclaimed persons convicted under Section 174-A IPC, the appellate court has discretion to modify the sentence from imprisonment to fine when it finds that imprisonment would not serve any useful purpose and when the larger interest of justice would be better served by imposing a monetary penalty instead, provided the enhanced fine is proportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances.
On this section: Originally charged under this section along with Section 174-A, but the trial court convicted only under Section 174-A. The appeal judgment does not discuss acquittal under this section.
-
Anand Raj vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving sexual offences against minors under POCSO Act, bail may be granted when: (a) the victim's own statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C does not corroborate the prosecution's allegations; (b) the accused has undergone substantial pre-trial custody; and (c) the investigation is nearing completion. The absence of incriminating evidence in the victim's statement is a significant factor in bail consideration, even in serious offences like POCSO violations.
On this section: Offence of personation by assuming false name or title - fresh FIR can be registered if accused absconds after bail
-
Irfan vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious offenses under special criminal legislation such as the U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be granted when, after considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, custody duration, likelihood of trial presence, and public interest, the court determines it is a fit case for bail, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure court presence and prevent bail misuse.
On this section: Applied as a condition of bail; non-appearance without sufficient cause can result in prosecution under this section
-
Imran vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications involving serious charges under the Gangster Act, the court must balance the severity of the offense and public interest against the accused's right to bail by considering the nature of accusations, evidence, character of the accused, duration of pre-trial detention, and reasonable possibility of securing trial attendance. When these factors collectively indicate it is a fit case for bail, the court may grant bail with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance, prevent witness tampering, and protect public interest, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
On this section: Applied as condition for non-appearance without sufficient cause; court warned of prosecution under this section if accused fails to appear
-
Sanjeev Maurya vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving death where the FIR itself indicates the deceased was engaged in criminal activity (theft) at the time of the incident, and where the accused claim private defense of property under Section 103 IPC, and where the accused have no criminal history and have been in custody for an extended period, and where a co-accused in the same case has already been granted bail, bail may be granted by the High Court under Section 439 CrPC, subject to stringent conditions ensuring trial court compliance and witness protection.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in court - cited as potential consequence if applicants breach bail condition of regular court attendance
-
Nitin vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even in cases involving serious offences under the Excise Act and IPC (Sections 420, 482), bail may be granted when the trial status is unclear and the accused has already undergone substantial pre-trial detention, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure presence during trial and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Applied as consequence for non-appearance of accused before trial court without sufficient cause
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 229
What have the courts held on Section 229 of the Indian Penal Code?
Atul Sen vs State of H.p. (19 Nov 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Fabricating false evidence; court noted this section cannot be basis for FIR registration in bail jumping context. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2018 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 229 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 229, section 229 IPC, section 229 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 229a and ipc 229 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Atul Sen vs State of H.p. (19 Nov 2020).
What should I read with Section 229 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 268 (Personation of assessor), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 229 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 229 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 229, 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.