"Valuable security"
Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with "Valuable security". The words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or who hereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
The words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or who hereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
Illustration
A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a "valuable security".
Section 30, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 2 Definitions Close, with changes 66%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 5
- Anti Social activities (Prevention) Act s. 2 Definitions
- Dowry Prohibition, act s. 2 Definition of "dowry"
- Dowry Prohibition Act s. 2 Definition of “dowry”
- Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s. 2 Definitions
- Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 s. 2 Definitions
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.
-
Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in the disposal of mercy petitions filed under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, entitling a death row convict to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The procedure for executing death sentences must be just, fair and reasonable, and prolonged delay in deciding mercy petitions creates a dehumanizing effect equivalent to torture, making such execution constitutionally impermissible. While no fixed period of delay can be prescribed (overruling the two-year rule in Vatheeswaran), each case requires examination of the nature and extent of delay and all supervening circumstances (including mental illness developed on death row) in light of all the facts to determine whether execution should be carried out or commuted. The scope of limited judicial review of executive orders under Article 72/161 extends to examining whether the order was passed with application of mind, without mala fides, without extraneous considerations, with consideration of all relevant materials, and without arbitrariness. The gravity of the crime cannot preclude commutation based on delay as all death sentences are already for rarest of rare cases where gravity exhausts itself at sentencing. The distinction between TADA and IPC offences for mercy consideration is per incuriam and violates Article 14 (equality). Mental illness including schizophrenia developed by death row prisoners is a valid supervening circumstance warranting commutation. Solitary confinement of death row prisoners prior to rejection of mercy petition by President is unconstitutional.
On this section: Interpreted in light of Sunil Batra principle; held that solitary confinement not authorized; only segregation for discipline purposes allowed, not punitive solitude
-
Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Every demand by husband or family members cannot automatically be termed 'dowry demand' within meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The demand must be 'in connection with the marriage' of the parties. However, when a husband demands money for business expansion and harasses and beats the wife soon before her death, and the deceased had specifically informed her father of such harassment and demands, the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied. The temporal requirement 'soon before her death' should be understood through the concept of 'reasonable time' based on facts and circumstances, requiring a reasonable nexus between cruelty/harassment and death. Once the prosecution establishes these ingredients, a rebuttable presumption arises that the husband or relatives have caused the death by deemed fiction of law. Minor variations or contradictions in witness statements due to time lapse are not fatal to conviction if the statements are read cumulatively and in their entirety.
On this section: Definition of valuable security - referenced through Explanation II to Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, clarifying that dowry includes 'valuable security' as defined in IPC.
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 30
What have the courts held on Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code?
Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (21 Jan 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Interpreted in light of Sunil Batra principle; held that solitary confinement not authorized; only segregation for discipline purposes allowed, not punitive solitude. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 30 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 30, section 30 IPC, section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (21 Jan 2014).
What should I read with Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 2 (Definitions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 30, 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.