Section 231 IPC: Counterfeiting Coin
Section 231 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished a person who counterfeited coin or knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting coin. Its Explanation also covered deceptive alteration of a genuine coin so that it appeared to be a different coin.
This article explains Section 231 IPC as applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force. It should be read with the IPC definition of "coin" in Section 230.
Text of Section 231 IPC
Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: A person commits this offence who, intending to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised, causes a genuine coin to appear like a different coin.
Meaning of counterfeiting coin under Section 231
The section covered both the act of counterfeiting coin and knowing participation in any part of the counterfeiting process. A person therefore did not necessarily have to carry out every stage of manufacture before the statutory language could apply; knowingly performing a part of the process was expressly included.
Definition of coin under Section 230 IPC
For this Chapter of the IPC, Section 230 IPC defined "coin" as metal used for the time being as money and stamped and issued by the authority of a State or Sovereign Power in order to be so used. That definition supplies the legal meaning of "coin" when Section 231 is applied.
Essential ingredients of Section 231 IPC
Depending on the manner in which the offence is alleged, the statutory elements include:
- there must be coin within the meaning applicable to the IPC Chapter;
- the accused counterfeited the coin, or knowingly performed some part of the process of counterfeiting it; or
- under the Explanation, the accused caused a genuine coin to appear like a different coin while intending deception or knowing that deception was likely thereby to be practised.
Knowingly performing part of the counterfeiting process
The word "knowingly" is significant where liability is based on performing only part of the counterfeiting process. The statutory formulation requires knowing participation in that process. Whether the required knowledge existed is a matter to be established from the evidence and circumstances of the particular case.
Deceptively altering a genuine coin
The Explanation extends the offence beyond fabrication of a wholly false coin. If a person causes a genuine coin to appear like a different coin, the conduct falls within the Explanation where the person intends to practise deception or knows that deception is likely to be practised as a result.
Punishment and classification under the pre-BNS law
| Offence | Counterfeiting coin or knowingly performing any part of the process of counterfeiting coin |
|---|---|
| Punishment | Imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and liability to fine |
| Cognizable | Yes |
| Bailable | No - non-bailable |
| Triable by | Magistrate of the First Class |
| Compoundable | No - non-compoundable |
Section 231 and counterfeiting Indian coin
Section 231 dealt generally with counterfeiting "coin." The IPC separately provided for counterfeiting "Indian coin" in Section 232 IPC. The distinction matters because the two provisions used different statutory descriptions and punishments.
Section 231 IPC at a glance
Section 231 IPC punished counterfeiting coin as well as knowing participation in any part of the counterfeiting process. The Explanation expressly treated deceptive alteration of a genuine coin so that it appeared to be a different coin as counterfeiting when accompanied by the required intention or knowledge. The punishment could extend to seven years' imprisonment, together with liability to fine.
Legal note: This page is deliberately framed around the Indian Penal Code position before implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For a particular historical or pending matter, the applicable substantive and procedural law should be determined with reference to the relevant date and applicable saving or transition provisions.