Falsification of accounts
Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with falsification of accounts. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his emp 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in. any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.-It shall be sufficient in any charge under this
section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed.]
[Of property and other marks
Section 477A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 344 Falsification of accounts Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Defines falsification of accounts; requires proof that accused wilfully and with intent to defraud destroyed, altered, or falsified books or accounts; Court held that intent to defraud contains elements of deceit and injury, both of which must be proved
-
J. Ramesh Kamath vs Mohana Kurup
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal charges involving misappropriation of organizational funds by office bearers in positions of fiduciary trust cannot be characterized as purely personal or civil disputes amenable to quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on settlement agreements, even when accepted by all parties including complaining members and current office bearers. The High Court must refuse to quash criminal proceedings in such cases because they involve crimes of breach of trust against the organization and society, and the timing of settlement after completion of investigation and charge-sheet filing demands that the trial court be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on evidence presented at trial. The distinction between Section 320 (compounding) and Section 482 (inherent jurisdiction) does not permit circumvention of the principles that serious offences involving breach of organizational trust and fiduciary duty are not amenable to settlement, regardless of whether all parties subsequently agree to compromise.
On this section: Falsification of accounts and records - applied to the charge of altering, destroying, and mutilating account books of the association
-
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases involving heinous or serious offences, corruption, or moral turpitude by a candidate in the affidavit filed with nomination papers constitutes undue influence and corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, as it directly interferes with the free exercise of electoral right by depriving voters of their fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates, thereby preventing them from making informed and advised electoral choices. Once such non-disclosure is established in an election petition, the election must be declared null and void under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act without requiring proof that the result was materially affected.
On this section: Falsification of accounts, charges against appellant
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Falsification of accounts - applied in context of falsified shipping bills register
-
K.S. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2015-06-19 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A. 1893/2004. P. Ubaid J. Isolates IPC 477A: a public-servant cashier’s willful omission to enter receipts in the SOP-6 cash register, with intent to defraud and to misappropriate, is falsification of accounts; later restitution of the amount does not wipe the offence. Conviction under 477A (with 409 / PC Act 13) confirmed; sentence reduced. Carry bns 344 successor (mapping.csv near-identical 0.9291). Do not pad ipc 409 (already filled).
On this section: IPC 477A is made out by a willful omission to enter receipts in the cash books with intent to defraud; later restitution does not erase the falsification (K.S. Kuriakose).
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.
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they are innocent; the …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they are innocent; the …
-
… He also happens to be the National Convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, a political party in India. - 3.2. Central Bureau of Investigation ( hereinafter 'CBI' ) the Respondent registered an FIR No. RC0032022A0053 ( hereinafter 'FIR' ), on 17.08.2022 under Sections 120B read with Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 ( hereinafter 'IPC' ) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( hereinafter 'PC Act' ) against various persons. The FIR alleged irregularities, falsification, undue advantage, and a conspiracy among the persons holding positions of responsibility within the GNCTD, …
Questions about Section 477A
What have the courts held on Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code?
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi (13 Dec 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines falsification of accounts; requires proof that accused wilfully and with intent to defraud destroyed, altered, or falsified books or accounts; Court held that intent to defraud contains elements of deceit and injury, both of which must be proved. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 477A 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 477A, section 477A IPC, section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 477a punishment and ipc 477a in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi (13 Dec 2021).
What should I read with Section 477A 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 344 (Falsification of accounts), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 477A, 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.