Having possession of counterfeit Government stamp
Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with having possession of counterfeit Government stamp. Whoever has in his possession any stamp which he knows to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use, or dispose of the same as a genuine stamp, or in order that it may be used as a genuine stamp, shall be punished with imprisonment of either desc 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 has in his possession any stamp which he knows to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use, or dispose of the same as a genuine stamp, or in order that it may be used as a genuine stamp, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 259, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 180 Possession of forged or counterfeit coin, Government stamp, currency-notes or bank-notes Distant match 55%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Rafi Ahmed vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person has undergone pre-conviction detention for a period equal to or exceeding the sentence awarded by the trial court, the conviction and sentence may be affirmed, but the accused should be set at liberty forthwith as they have already served their sentence, following the principle established in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311.
On this section: Offence of counterfeiting public seal - one of the offences for which appellants were convicted
-
Vipul Jindal vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious allegations of fraud against the government exchequer through creation of fake firms and GST evasion, where material evidence has been recovered based on the accused's disclosure statement, and where a higher court has already dismissed similar bail applications in related cases, bail should be denied to prevent interference with investigation and destruction of evidence.
On this section: Counterfeiting a government stamp - applicable to the use of fake rubber stamps in the fraud scheme
-
Prakash Bhiva Mayekar vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution's case is limited to washing and reusing genuine stamps (rather than printing duplicate or bogus stamps), and the accused have been on bail during trial without any misconduct, substantive sentences of short duration (4 years maximum) should be suspended and bail should be granted pending appeal, provided appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure the accused's appearance and compliance with court orders.
On this section: Offence of counterfeiting government stamp - accused convicted under this section for alleged stamp-related offences
-
Kunwar Pal Singh vs State Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When two accused persons are apprehended in the same transaction involving offer and acceptance of counterfeit government security documents, they are jointly liable under Section 258 IPC (non-bailable offence), regardless of whether one accused was apprehended based on information from the other, and bail should not be granted at the early stage of such proceedings.
On this section: Bailable offence; petitioner's counsel argued this section applied to Kunwar Pal Sharma as there was no completed sale transaction in his case
-
Shivam vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person's name appears in an FIR based on inculpatory statements of co-accused, the court may reject an anticipatory bail application even if the accused claims false implication, has no criminal history, and offers cooperation with investigation, as the inculpatory nature of the co-accused statements constitutes sufficient ground to believe in the accused's involvement.
On this section: Sections 259-260 relate to counterfeiting currency; Section 420 relates to cheating; Sections 468-471 relate to forgery and use of forged documents; Section 481 relates to counterfeiting government seal. These sections were applied to the underlying FIR registered against the accused.
-
Ramanuj Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When material of a serious nature transpires against an accused person in a criminal case involving charges of cheating and forgery under sections 420, 258, 259, and 260 IPC, the court may decline to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the nature of the material suggests the gravity of the allegations.
On this section: Forgery of valuable security - charge 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.
Questions about Section 259
What have the courts held on Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code?
Rafi Ahmed vs State of Karnataka (18 Jul 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of counterfeiting public seal - one of the offences for which appellants were convicted. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2005 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 259 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 259, section 259 IPC, section 259 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 259a and 259 ipc punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rafi Ahmed vs State of Karnataka (18 Jul 2017).
What should I read with Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 180 (Possession of forged or counterfeit coin, Government stamp, currency-notes or bank-notes), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 259, 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.