- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 182 - Making or Using Documents Resembling Currency-Notes or Bank-Notes
Introduction
Section 182 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the making, use and distribution of documents that resemble currency-notes or bank-notes.
The provision seeks to protect the public from confusion and deception arising from documents that imitate the appearance of genuine currency.
Currency-notes and bank-notes are important instruments in the monetary system. Their appearance, design and official character help members of the public recognise them as genuine monetary instruments.
Documents that imitate currency-notes or bank-notes may create confusion, particularly where their appearance is sufficiently similar to deceive an ordinary observer.
Section 182 therefore prohibits specified activities involving documents that purport to be currency-notes or bank-notes, resemble such notes, or so nearly resemble them as to be calculated to deceive.
The provision extends beyond the actual manufacture of such documents. It also covers causing them to be made, using them for any purpose whatsoever and delivering them to another person.
An important feature of Section 182 is that it does not require the document to be successfully passed off as genuine currency.
The statutory language focuses on the making, use or delivery of a document falling within the prohibited description.
Section 182 also contains a separate obligation concerning disclosure of the identity of the person who printed or otherwise made the document.
Where the name of a person appears on a document whose making constitutes an offence under subsection (1), that person may be punished for refusing, without lawful excuse, to provide the printer’s or maker’s name and address to a police officer when required.
The provision further establishes a rebuttable presumption concerning persons whose names appear on the relevant documents or associated materials.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 489E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The principal statutory language remains unchanged, but the maximum fines under subsections (1) and (2) have been increased.
Central Memory Formula
CURRENCY-LIKE DOCUMENT + MAKING, CAUSING TO BE MADE, USING OR DELIVERING = SECTION 182(1)
REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE MAKER’S DETAILS WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE = SECTION 182(2)
NAME APPEARING ON DOCUMENT = REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 182(3)
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 182
Q1. What does Section 182 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 182 prohibits specified activities involving documents that purport to be currency-notes or bank-notes, resemble such notes, or so nearly resemble them as to be calculated to deceive.
Under subsection (1), a person may be punished for making, causing to be made, using for any purpose whatsoever or delivering to another person a document falling within the statutory description.
Under subsection (2), a person whose name appears on a document whose making is an offence under subsection (1) may be punished for refusing, without lawful excuse, to disclose the name and address of the person who printed or otherwise made the document when required by a police officer.
Subsection (3) provides a rebuttable presumption concerning a person whose name appears on the relevant document or an associated document used or distributed in connection with it.
Q2. What is the principal object of Section 182?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 182 is to prevent the creation and circulation of documents that may be mistaken for currency-notes or bank-notes.
The provision protects public confidence in the appearance and authenticity of monetary instruments.
It also seeks to reduce the risk of confusion arising from documents that imitate genuine notes.
Section 182 has a preventive character because it addresses specified dealings in currency-like documents without requiring proof that a person was actually deceived.
Q3. Which provision of the Indian Penal Code corresponds to Section 182 BNS?
Answer:
Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 489E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the supplied commentary, the principal statutory language has been retained.
However, the maximum fines under subsections (1) and (2) have been increased.
Memory Formula:
182 BNS = 489E IPC
Q4. Is Section 182 a completely new offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 182 substantially retains the offence previously contained in Section 489E IPC.
The earlier provision also addressed documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
The principal legislative changes identified in the supplied commentary concern the increase in maximum fines.
Part II — Structure of Section 182
Q5. How many subsections are contained in Section 182?
Answer:
Section 182 contains three subsections.
Section 182(1) prohibits specified activities involving documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
Section 182(2) punishes refusal, without lawful excuse, to disclose the name and address of the printer or maker when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Section 182(3) establishes a rebuttable presumption concerning a person whose name appears on the relevant document or an associated document.
Memory Formula:
182(1) = PROHIBITED DOCUMENTS
182(2) = REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE MAKER
182(3) = REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
Q6. Are all three subsections separate offences?
Answer:
No.
Subsections (1) and (2) prescribe punishable conduct.
Subsection (3) establishes an evidentiary presumption.
It does not independently prescribe a separate punishment.
This distinction is important because the procedural classification supplied for Section 182 specifically identifies subsections (1) and (2).
Part III — Section 182(1): Prohibited Currency-Like Documents
Q7. What conduct is prohibited under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
Section 182(1) covers four principal forms of conduct involving a document falling within the statutory description.
First — Making the document
The accused makes a document purporting to be, resembling or sufficiently resembling a currency-note or bank-note.
Second — Causing the document to be made
The accused causes another person to make such a document.
Third — Using the document
The accused uses the document for any purpose whatsoever.
Fourth — Delivering the document
The accused delivers the document to another person.
The provision is therefore not limited to the person who physically prints or produces the document.
Memory Formula:
MAKE + CAUSE TO MAKE + USE + DELIVER = SECTION 182(1)
Q8. What kind of document is covered by Section 182(1)?
Answer:
Section 182(1) covers a document that:
Purports to be a currency-note or bank-note.
Resembles a currency-note or bank-note in any way.
Or so nearly resembles a currency-note or bank-note as to be calculated to deceive.
The statutory wording is broad.
It does not confine the provision to documents that are exact reproductions of genuine notes.
Q9. What is meant by a document purporting to be a currency-note or bank-note?
Answer:
A document purporting to be a currency-note or bank-note is one that presents or represents itself as such a note.
For example, a printed document may contain words, symbols or visual features suggesting that it is an official currency-note.
Where the document falls within the statutory description and the accused performs one of the prohibited acts, Section 182(1) may apply.
Q10. What is meant by a document resembling a currency-note or bank-note?
Answer:
A document resembling a currency-note or bank-note is one that has similarities in appearance or presentation to such a note.
The resemblance may concern design, layout, printed features or other visual characteristics.
Section 182(1) expressly includes documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
The exact degree and nature of the resemblance must be assessed in the circumstances.
Q11. What is meant by a document so nearly resembling a note as to be calculated to deceive?
Answer:
This expression refers to a document whose resemblance to a currency-note or bank-note is sufficiently close to create the kind of deceptive appearance contemplated by the statute.
The phrase “calculated to deceive” focuses on the deceptive character or tendency of the resemblance.
It does not expressly require proof that a particular person was actually deceived.
Q12. Must the document be an exact copy of a genuine currency-note?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(1) uses broader language than exact reproduction.
It covers documents purporting to be currency-notes or bank-notes, documents resembling them, and documents so nearly resembling them as to be calculated to deceive.
Therefore, exact duplication is not an express statutory requirement.
Q13. Must the document be capable of being used as actual money?
Answer:
Section 182(1) does not expressly require the document to be accepted as legal tender or successfully circulated as money.
The statutory focus is on the nature of the document and the prohibited conduct involving it.
A document may therefore fall within the provision even if it has not been successfully used in a monetary transaction.
Q14. Must someone actually be deceived?
Answer:
No express requirement of actual deception appears in Section 182(1).
The provision addresses documents having the prohibited appearance or resemblance.
Therefore, the absence of a person who was actually deceived does not automatically exclude liability.
Q15. Is an intention to cheat a particular person expressly required?
Answer:
Section 182(1) does not expressly state that the accused must intend to cheat a particular identified person.
The provision focuses on the making, causing to be made, use or delivery of documents falling within the statutory description.
It should therefore not be confused with other offences that contain separate requirements concerning cheating, dishonesty or counterfeiting.
Part IV — Making or Causing Documents to Be Made
Q16. What is meant by making a document under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
Making refers to producing or creating the relevant document.
This may involve printing or otherwise preparing a document that purports to be, resembles or sufficiently resembles a currency-note or bank-note.
The particular method of production is not restricted to one form of printing in the supplied statutory wording.
Q17. What is meant by causing a document to be made?
Answer:
Causing a document to be made refers to bringing about its production through another person.
For example, a person may instruct or arrange for another person to print documents resembling bank-notes.
Section 182(1) expressly includes causing such documents to be made.
Q18. Must the accused personally operate the printing equipment?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(1) expressly includes causing a document to be made.
Therefore, a person need not personally operate a printer or other equipment to fall within this form of prohibited conduct.
The relevant question is whether the accused caused the prohibited document to be made.
Q19. Can a person who commissions the printing of currency-like documents be covered?
Answer:
Yes.
Where a person causes a document falling within the statutory description to be made, Section 182(1) may apply.
The provision is not confined to the individual who physically produces the document.
Part V — Using or Delivering Currency-Like Documents
Q20. Does Section 182(1) prohibit using the document?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 182(1) expressly covers using the relevant document for any purpose whatsoever.
This is a broad expression.
The provision is not expressly restricted to using the document as money.
However, the document must first satisfy the statutory description.
Q21. What is the significance of the words “for any purpose whatsoever”?
Answer:
The words indicate that the prohibited use is not confined to one particular purpose.
The provision may apply to use in different circumstances where the document falls within the statutory description.
It would therefore be incorrect to assume that Section 182(1) applies only where the document is used to purchase goods or services.
Q22. Must the document be used in a financial transaction?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(1) expressly refers to use for any purpose whatsoever.
It does not restrict the offence to financial transactions.
The prohibited nature of the document and the relevant act of use remain the central considerations.
Q23. Does Section 182(1) prohibit delivery of the document?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly includes delivering the relevant document to any person.
Delivery is a separate form of prohibited conduct.
Therefore, the offence is not limited to manufacturing or using the document.
Q24. Must delivery involve payment?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(1) refers to delivering the document to another person.
It does not expressly require a sale or payment.
Therefore, delivery without monetary consideration may still fall within the statutory wording.
Q25. Is mere possession expressly identified as a separate offence under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(1) expressly identifies making, causing to be made, using and delivering the relevant document.
It does not separately list mere possession as a prohibited act.
Possession alone should therefore not automatically be treated as satisfying the completed offence under this subsection.
Part VI — Section 182(2): Refusal to Disclose Printer or Maker
Q26. What does Section 182(2) provide?
Answer:
Section 182(2) applies where a person’s name appears on a document whose making is an offence under subsection (1).
If that person, without lawful excuse, refuses to disclose to a police officer, when required, the name and address of the person who printed or otherwise made the document, the person may be punished under subsection (2).
The maximum punishment is a fine extending up to ₹600.
Memory Formula:
NAME ON DOCUMENT + POLICE REQUIREMENT + REFUSAL WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE = SECTION 182(2)
Q27. Who may be liable under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
A person whose name appears on a document whose making constitutes an offence under Section 182(1) may fall within subsection (2).
However, liability is not established merely because the person’s name appears on the document.
The additional statutory requirements concerning a police officer’s request, refusal and absence of lawful excuse must also be satisfied.
Q28. What information must be disclosed under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
The subsection refers to the name and address of the person by whom the relevant document was printed or otherwise made.
The obligation therefore concerns identifying the printer or maker of the document.
Q29. Must the request come from a police officer?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 182(2) expressly refers to disclosure to a police officer upon being required to provide the information.
The statutory condition concerning the police officer’s requirement must be established.
Q30. Is every failure to provide information automatically punishable?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(2) expressly refers to refusal without lawful excuse.
Therefore, the existence of a lawful excuse is relevant.
The prosecution must establish the statutory conditions rather than treating every failure to provide information as automatically punishable.
Q31. What is meant by lawful excuse under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
A lawful excuse is a legally recognised justification for refusing to disclose the required information.
Whether a particular explanation amounts to a lawful excuse depends on the applicable law and circumstances.
The statutory qualification must be considered when determining liability.
Q32. Must the person whose name appears on the document be the actual printer?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(2) concerns disclosure of the name and address of the person who printed or otherwise made the document.
The person whose name appears on the document may be different from the actual printer or maker.
The subsection is intended to assist in identifying the person responsible for producing the relevant document.
Q33. What is the punishment under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
The punishment is a fine which may extend to ₹600.
The subsection does not prescribe imprisonment as its substantive punishment.
Memory Formula:
182(2) = FINE UP TO ₹600
Part VII — Section 182(3): Rebuttable Presumption
Q34. What does Section 182(3) provide?
Answer:
Section 182(3) provides that where a person’s name appears on a document in respect of which a person is charged under subsection (1), or on another document used or distributed in connection with that document, it may be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the named person caused the document to be made.
This is an evidentiary presumption.
It assists in determining responsibility for causing the document to be produced.
Q35. What is meant by a presumption under Section 182(3)?
Answer:
A presumption permits a court to draw a particular conclusion from an established fact, subject to the statutory conditions.
Under Section 182(3), the appearance of a person’s name on the relevant document or an associated document may support a presumption that the person caused the document to be made.
The presumption is rebuttable.
Q36. What is meant by a rebuttable presumption?
Answer:
A rebuttable presumption is one that may be displaced by evidence establishing the contrary.
Section 182(3) expressly uses the words “until the contrary is proved”.
Therefore, the presumption is not conclusive.
The person concerned may rely on evidence showing that the presumed fact is incorrect.
Q37. Does the appearance of a person’s name automatically prove guilt?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(3) permits a presumption that the named person caused the document to be made.
It does not state that the appearance of a name conclusively proves every ingredient of the offence.
The presumption must be understood according to its statutory scope.
Q38. Is the presumption mandatory?
Answer:
Section 182(3) uses the expression “it may … be presumed”.
This wording permits the presumption in the circumstances specified by the subsection.
It should not be rewritten as an automatic or irrebuttable declaration of guilt.
Q39. Can the presumption arise from an associated document?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 182(3) expressly refers not only to the document forming the subject of the charge but also to another document used or distributed in connection with it.
Therefore, the appearance of a person’s name on an associated document may be relevant to the statutory presumption.
Q40. What fact may be presumed under Section 182(3)?
Answer:
The fact that may be presumed is that the named person caused the relevant document to be made.
The presumption should not be expanded beyond the fact identified in the statutory wording.
Memory Formula:
NAME APPEARS = MAY PRESUME PERSON CAUSED DOCUMENT TO BE MADE
BUT
PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED
Part VIII — Practical Illustrations
Q41. Illustration 1 — Printing documents resembling bank-notes
Answer:
A prints documents that closely resemble genuine bank-notes.
The documents fall within the description contained in Section 182(1).
A may be liable under Section 182(1) for making the documents.
Q42. Illustration 2 — Causing another person to print currency-like documents
Answer:
B instructs a printing business to produce documents that purport to be currency-notes.
B may be liable under Section 182(1) because the provision expressly covers causing such documents to be made.
Q43. Illustration 3 — Using a currency-like document for advertising
Answer:
C uses an advertising document resembling a bank-note.
The document falls within the statutory description of Section 182(1).
The fact that C uses the document for advertising does not, by itself, exclude the provision because it refers to use for any purpose whatsoever.
Whether the offence is established depends on the document and the remaining statutory requirements.
Q44. Illustration 4 — Delivering a currency-like document
Answer:
D delivers to E a document purporting to be a currency-note.
D may be liable under Section 182(1) because delivery to another person is expressly included.
Q45. Illustration 5 — Delivery without payment
Answer:
F distributes documents resembling bank-notes without charging money.
The absence of payment does not automatically exclude Section 182(1).
The provision expressly covers delivery and use.
Q46. Illustration 6 — No actual deception
Answer:
G makes documents that so nearly resemble currency-notes as to be calculated to deceive.
No person is actually deceived.
The absence of actual deception does not automatically exclude Section 182(1), because actual deception is not an express statutory requirement.
Q47. Illustration 7 — Refusal to disclose printer’s identity
Answer:
H’s name appears on a document whose making is an offence under Section 182(1).
A police officer requires H to disclose the name and address of the person who printed the document.
H refuses without lawful excuse.
H may be liable under Section 182(2).
Q48. Illustration 8 — Refusal with lawful excuse
Answer:
J’s name appears on the relevant document.
A police officer requests the printer’s name and address.
J refuses, but the circumstances establish a lawful excuse recognised by the applicable law.
The statutory requirement of refusal without lawful excuse would not be satisfied.
Q49. Illustration 9 — Name appearing on the document
Answer:
K’s name appears on a document in respect of which an offence under Section 182(1) is charged.
Under Section 182(3), it may be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that K caused the document to be made.
Q50. Illustration 10 — Rebutting the presumption
Answer:
L’s name appears on a document resembling a bank-note.
L produces evidence establishing that another person used L’s name without authorisation and that L did not cause the document to be made.
Such evidence may be relevant to rebutting the presumption under Section 182(3).
Q51. Illustration 11 — Name appearing on associated advertising material
Answer:
M’s name appears on advertising material distributed in connection with a document forming the subject of a charge under Section 182(1).
Section 182(3) may become relevant because it expressly includes associated documents used or distributed in connection with the relevant document.
Q52. Illustration 12 — Mere possession without use or delivery
Answer:
N possesses a document resembling a currency-note but does not make it, cause it to be made, use it or deliver it.
Mere possession is not separately identified as a completed offence under Section 182(1).
The facts must be assessed according to the acts expressly prohibited.
Part IX — Punishment and Classification
Q53. What is the punishment under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
Section 182(1) prescribes a fine which may extend to ₹300.
The subsection does not prescribe imprisonment as its substantive punishment.
Memory Formula:
182(1) = FINE UP TO ₹300
Q54. What is the punishment under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
Section 182(2) prescribes a fine which may extend to ₹600.
The subsection does not prescribe imprisonment as its substantive punishment.
Memory Formula:
182(2) = FINE UP TO ₹600
Q55. Does Section 182(3) prescribe a separate punishment?
Answer:
No.
Section 182(3) establishes a rebuttable evidentiary presumption.
It does not independently prescribe imprisonment or fine.
Q56. Is Section 182(1) cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(1) is non-cognizable.
The powers of police investigation and arrest are therefore governed by the procedural rules applicable to non-cognizable offences.
Classification: Non-Cognizable.
Q57. Is Section 182(1) bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(1) is bailable.
The accused is entitled to bail in accordance with the applicable procedural provisions governing bailable offences.
Classification: Bailable.
Q58. Which court tries an offence under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(1) is triable by any Magistrate.
Complete Classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q59. Is Section 182(2) cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(2) is non-cognizable.
Classification: Non-Cognizable.
Q60. Is Section 182(2) bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(2) is bailable.
Classification: Bailable.
Q61. Which court tries an offence under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 182(2) is triable by any Magistrate.
Complete Classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Part X — Important Legal Distinctions
Q62. What is the difference between Section 182 and counterfeiting currency-notes?
Answer:
Section 182 specifically addresses documents that purport to be, resemble or sufficiently resemble currency-notes or bank-notes.
Other provisions concerning counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes contain their own statutory ingredients and punishments.
Section 182 should therefore not automatically be treated as identical to an offence involving the counterfeiting of genuine currency.
The applicable provision depends on the nature of the document and the conduct established.
Q63. What is the difference between making and causing to be made?
Answer:
Making involves personally producing the document.
Causing to be made involves bringing about the production of the document through another person.
Section 182(1) expressly covers both forms of conduct.
Q64. What is the difference between using and delivering?
Answer:
Using involves employing the document for a purpose.
Delivering involves transferring or handing the document to another person.
Both are separately identified under Section 182(1).
Q65. What is the difference between Section 182(1) and Section 182(2)?
Answer:
Section 182(1) concerns prohibited activities involving documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
Section 182(2) concerns refusal, without lawful excuse, to disclose the printer’s or maker’s name and address when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
The subsections therefore address different conduct.
Q66. What is the difference between Section 182(2) and Section 182(3)?
Answer:
Section 182(2) creates a punishable obligation concerning disclosure of the printer’s or maker’s identity.
Section 182(3) establishes a rebuttable presumption concerning responsibility for causing the document to be made.
Subsection (2) prescribes a fine.
Subsection (3) does not prescribe a separate punishment.
Q67. What is the difference between a presumption and conclusive proof?
Answer:
A presumption permits a conclusion to be drawn subject to the applicable statutory conditions.
Conclusive proof would prevent the presumed conclusion from being displaced in the manner permitted by a rebuttable presumption.
Section 182(3) expressly permits the contrary to be proved.
Therefore, its presumption is rebuttable rather than conclusive.
Part XI — Legislative Changes from IPC to BNS
Q68. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 182 BNS?
Answer:
Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 489E IPC.
The principal offence has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Memory Formula:
BNS 182 = IPC 489E
Q69. What changes were made to the fine under Section 182(1)?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the maximum fine under subsection (1) was increased from ₹100 under the IPC to ₹300 under the BNS.
Memory Formula:
182(1): ₹100 → ₹300
Q70. What changes were made to the fine under Section 182(2)?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the maximum fine under subsection (2) was increased from ₹200 under the IPC to ₹600 under the BNS.
Memory Formula:
182(2): ₹200 → ₹600
Q71. Was the substantive wording otherwise changed?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the language of the provision remains unchanged apart from the identified increases in the maximum fines.
The central prohibitions and the rebuttable presumption have been retained.
Q72. What is the most important legislative change to remember for examinations?
Answer:
The most important change is the increase in the maximum fines.
Under subsection (1), the maximum fine increased from ₹100 to ₹300.
Under subsection (2), the maximum fine increased from ₹200 to ₹600.
Both fines were increased to three times their previous maximum amounts.
Memory Formula:
OLD FINE × 3 = NEW FINE
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 182 regulates documents purporting to be, resembling or sufficiently resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
2. Section 182(1)
Prohibits making, causing to be made, using for any purpose whatsoever or delivering the relevant documents.
3. Section 182(2)
Punishes refusal, without lawful excuse, to disclose the printer’s or maker’s name and address when required by a police officer and the statutory conditions are satisfied.
4. Section 182(3)
Creates a rebuttable presumption that a named person caused the relevant document to be made.
5. Exact Copy
An exact copy is not expressly required.
6. Actual Deception
Actual deception is not expressly required.
7. Financial Transaction
Use in a financial transaction is not expressly required.
8. Delivery
Delivery to another person is separately covered.
9. Mere Possession
Mere possession is not separately identified as a completed offence under subsection (1).
10. Lawful Excuse
Relevant to refusal under subsection (2).
11. Rebuttable Presumption
The presumption under subsection (3) may be displaced by proof to the contrary.
12. Punishment Under Section 182(1)
Fine extending up to ₹300.
13. Punishment Under Section 182(2)
Fine extending up to ₹600.
14. Classification of Both Punishable Subsections
Non-cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by any Magistrate.
15. IPC Equivalent
Section 489E IPC.
16. Legislative Change
Maximum fines increased from ₹100 to ₹300 and from ₹200 to ₹600.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 182 BNS.
Title: Making or Using Documents Resembling Currency-Notes or Bank-Notes.
IPC Equivalent: Section 489E IPC.
Protected Interest: Authenticity and public recognition of currency-notes and bank-notes.
Section 182(1): Making, causing to be made, using or delivering prohibited currency-like documents.
Section 182(2): Refusal without lawful excuse to disclose printer’s or maker’s name and address when required by a police officer.
Section 182(3): Rebuttable presumption concerning a named person causing the document to be made.
Exact Reproduction Required: No.
Actual Deception Required: No express requirement.
Use as Money Required: No express requirement.
Mere Possession Separately Prohibited: No.
Maximum Fine Under Section 182(1): ₹300.
Maximum Fine Under Section 182(2): ₹600.
Separate Punishment Under Section 182(3): None.
Cognizability of Section 182(1): Non-cognizable.
Bailability of Section 182(1): Bailable.
Trial Court for Section 182(1): Any Magistrate.
Cognizability of Section 182(2): Non-cognizable.
Bailability of Section 182(2): Bailable.
Trial Court for Section 182(2): Any Magistrate.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 182 applies only to exact counterfeit bank-notes.
Incorrect.
It covers documents purporting to be, resembling or sufficiently resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.
Trap 2 — The document must be accepted as genuine currency.
Incorrect.
Successful acceptance as currency is not an express requirement.
Trap 3 — Someone must actually be deceived.
Incorrect.
Actual deception is not expressly required.
Trap 4 — Section 182(1) applies only to the person who physically prints the document.
Incorrect.
It also covers causing the document to be made.
Trap 5 — Use must involve a financial transaction.
Incorrect.
The provision expressly refers to use for any purpose whatsoever.
Trap 6 — Delivery requires payment.
Incorrect.
Delivery is not expressly restricted to a sale.
Trap 7 — Mere possession is expressly identified as a separate offence under Section 182(1).
Incorrect.
The subsection identifies making, causing to be made, using and delivering.
Trap 8 — Section 182(2) applies automatically whenever a person’s name appears on the document.
Incorrect.
The statutory requirements concerning a police officer’s request, refusal and absence of lawful excuse must also be satisfied.
Trap 9 — Section 182(2) requires disclosure only of the printer’s name.
Incorrect.
It refers to the printer’s or maker’s name and address.
Trap 10 — Every refusal to disclose information is punishable.
Incorrect.
The subsection expressly refers to refusal without lawful excuse.
Trap 11 — Section 182(3) creates a separate offence.
Incorrect.
It establishes an evidentiary presumption.
Trap 12 — The presumption under Section 182(3) is conclusive.
Incorrect.
It may be rebutted by proof to the contrary.
Trap 13 — A person’s name appearing on a document automatically proves guilt.
Incorrect.
The presumption concerns causing the document to be made and is rebuttable.
Trap 14 — Section 182(3) applies only when the person’s name appears on the principal document.
Incorrect.
It also refers to another document used or distributed in connection with the relevant document.
Trap 15 — The maximum fine under Section 182(1) is ₹100.
Incorrect.
Under the BNS, the maximum fine is ₹300.
Trap 16 — The maximum fine under Section 182(2) is ₹200.
Incorrect.
Under the BNS, the maximum fine is ₹600.
Trap 17 — Section 182(1) prescribes imprisonment.
Incorrect.
The supplied statutory wording prescribes a fine extending up to ₹300.
Trap 18 — Section 182(2) prescribes imprisonment.
Incorrect.
The supplied statutory wording prescribes a fine extending up to ₹600.
Trap 19 — Section 182(1) is cognizable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is non-cognizable.
Trap 20 — Section 182(2) is non-bailable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is bailable.
Trap 21 — Both offences are triable only by a Court of Session.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, both are triable by any Magistrate.
Trap 22 — Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 182 IPC.
Incorrect.
Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 489E IPC.
Trap 23 — The maximum fines remained unchanged under the BNS.
Incorrect.
The maximum fine under subsection (1) increased from ₹100 to ₹300.
The maximum fine under subsection (2) increased from ₹200 to ₹600.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 182 — MAKING OR USING DOCUMENTS RESEMBLING CURRENCY-NOTES OR BANK-NOTES
SECTION 182(1)
DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE OR RESEMBLING CURRENCY-NOTE OR BANK-NOTE
- ●
MAKE
OR
CAUSE TO BE MADE
OR
USE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER
OR
DELIVER TO ANY PERSON
=
FINE UP TO ₹300
SECTION 182(2)
PERSON’S NAME APPEARS ON RELEVANT DOCUMENT
- ●
POLICE OFFICER REQUIRES PRINTER’S OR MAKER’S NAME AND ADDRESS
- ●
REFUSAL WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE
=
FINE UP TO ₹600
SECTION 182(3)
NAME APPEARS ON RELEVANT OR ASSOCIATED DOCUMENT
=
MAY PRESUME PERSON CAUSED DOCUMENT TO BE MADE
UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED
CLASSIFICATION FOR SECTIONS 182(1) AND 182(2)
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC EQUIVALENT = SECTION 489E IPC
LEGISLATIVE CHANGE
182(1): ₹100 → ₹300
182(2): ₹200 → ₹600
Key Takeaway
Section 182 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prohibits specified activities involving documents that purport to be, resemble or so nearly resemble currency-notes or bank-notes as to be calculated to deceive.
Subsection (1) covers making, causing to be made, using for any purpose whatsoever and delivering such documents.
It prescribes a fine extending up to ₹300.
Subsection (2) addresses refusal, without lawful excuse, to disclose the name and address of the printer or maker when a police officer requires that information and the statutory conditions are satisfied.
It prescribes a fine extending up to ₹600.
Subsection (3) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person whose name appears on the relevant document or associated material caused the document to be made.
The presumption is not conclusive and may be displaced by proof to the contrary.
According to the supplied classification, offences under subsections (1) and (2) are non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 182 BNS corresponds to Section 489E IPC.
The principal statutory language has been retained, while the maximum fines have been increased from ₹100 to ₹300 under subsection (1) and from ₹200 to ₹600 under subsection (2).
Final Memory Line:
182 = CURRENCY-LIKE DOCUMENTS + MAKING, USING OR DELIVERING = ₹300 FINE; REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE MAKER = ₹600 FINE; NAME ON DOCUMENT = REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.
