Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes
Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes. Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section and of sections 489B, [489C, 489D and 489E], the expression "bank-note" means a promissory note or engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any part of the world, or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power, and intended to be used as equivalent to, or as a substitute for money.
Section 489A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 178 Counterfeiting coin, Government stamps, currency-notes or bank-notes Close, with changes 85%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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.
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes - covers both complete act and any part of process of counterfeiting; punishment up to 10 years imprisonment
-
Umashanker vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (relating to use, trafficking, and possession of counterfeit currency notes), the Crown bears an essential burden of affirmatively proving the mens rea element - specifically, that the accused 'knew or had reason to believe' that the currency notes were forged or counterfeit. Mere possession of counterfeit notes, or even their use in a transaction, cannot, without more, lead to a conviction; the prosecution must lead affirmative evidence establishing the accused's guilty knowledge or belief. A presumption of mens rea drawn solely from the fact that witnesses identified a note as counterfeit is not warranted under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. Courts must be cautious in applying these statutory provisions and must not extend them to punish unwary possessors or users. The absence of any specific questioning of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding his knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes further vitiates the conviction when the only piece of evidence relied upon is circumstantial (possession and use).
On this section: Relates to counterfeiting of currency notes; trial court acquitted the appellant under this section, indicating absence of intention to counterfeit
-
Harpreet Singh @ Pitra vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has remained in custody for an extended period (substantially beyond six months) in connection with trial for offences under IPC Sections 489A-D, and the trial is progressing but cannot realistically be expected to conclude in the near future due to significant witness examination still pending, bail should be granted on appropriate conditions including reasonable bail bond amounts and sureties, unless specific grounds such as flight risk, interference with witnesses, or commission of similar offences are established.
On this section: These sections define and penalize offences related to counterfeiting currency; cited to establish the nature and gravity of charges against the appellant. The Court considered these offences in determining appropriate bail quantum and conditions.
-
Mahendra Rajendra Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
All three ingredients of Section 489(C) IPC - possession of counterfeit notes, knowledge that they are counterfeit, and intention to use them as genuine - were proved against the appellants through: (1) direct evidence of recovery of 48 counterfeit notes from their possession; (2) expert report from India Security Press confirming all notes were counterfeit; (3) circumstantial evidence and testimony of accomplice witnesses establishing knowledge and intention; (4) the appellants' failure to offer any explanation for their possession. Therefore, the conviction under Section 489(C) r/w 34 IPC is justified. However, considering the small quantity of notes and the substantial pre-trial custody already undergone (ranging from 19 months 11 days to 21 months 10 days), the sentence should be reduced to time already served rather than the three years imposed by the trial court.
On this section: Cited as the section under which the crime was initially registered; relates to making or possessing instruments for making counterfeit currency
-
Jiyabur Rahman vs The State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After rejection of an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC on merits, a subsequent bail application can only be entertained if there is a material change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. Mere availability of a forensic report on seized counterfeit currency notes, when the underlying facts and evidence were already considered in the earlier rejection, does not constitute such material change.
On this section: Counterfeiting currency notes; petitioner charged with counterfeiting Indian currency notes
-
Hemant @ Bablu S/o Shri Prem Kumar B/c Jain vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over three months), the challan has been presented indicating readiness for trial, and the trial is expected to take considerable time, bail should be granted if the accused has no prior criminal involvement, as it would be just and expedient to do so under Section 439 CrPC, without prejudging the merits of the case.
On this section: These sections relate to counterfeiting currency notes and were the basis for the criminal charges against the petitioner. The court considered the nature of these offences while deciding on bail eligibility.
-
Lal Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for a considerable period, the challan has been presented, trial conclusion may take substantial time, and there is no evidence of prior criminal involvement or other criminal cases, bail should be granted under Section 439 CrPC, subject to satisfaction of the trial court, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
On this section: Counterfeiting currency - making or possessing counterfeit currency with intent to use or cause use as genuine
-
Akshay S/o Shri Prakash B/c Jodhawat Jain vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving counterfeiting offences where the accused has been in extended pre-trial custody, has no prior criminal history, and the investigation is complete with charges filed, bail may be granted as a matter of justice and expediency, provided the trial court is satisfied with the conditions of release.
On this section: Offences related to counterfeiting currency notes; charges against the 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 489A
What have the courts held on Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code?
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu (17 Nov 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes - covers both complete act and any part of process of counterfeiting; punishment up to 10 years imprisonment. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 489A 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 489A, section 489A IPC, section 489A of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 489a in bns and ipc 489a to 489e. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu (17 Nov 2004).
What should I read with Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 489B (Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 178 (Counterfeiting coin, Government stamps, currency-notes or bank-notes), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 489A, 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.