- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 183 - Effacing Writing from Substance Bearing Government Stamp, or Removing from Document a Stamp Used for It, with Intent to Cause Loss to Government
Introduction
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with fraudulent interference with documents, writings and substances bearing Government-issued revenue stamps.
The provision seeks to protect Government revenue by preventing the dishonest reuse of revenue stamps that have already been utilised for particular writings or documents.
Revenue stamps form part of the legal system for collecting stamp duty and other applicable revenue charges.
Where a stamp has been used for a particular writing or document, its subsequent removal or improper reuse may undermine the system through which Government revenue is collected.
Section 183 therefore criminalises specified acts involving the removal or erasure of writings or documents from stamped substances, as well as the removal of revenue stamps from writings or documents for which those stamps have already been used.
The central concern is the deliberate manipulation of stamped materials so that a stamp already used for one writing or document may be used again for another.
An important feature of Section 183 is that it covers two different methods of interference.
The first involves removing or effacing a writing or document from a substance bearing a Government revenue stamp.
The second involves removing a revenue stamp from the writing or document for which it has been used.
Both forms of conduct must be understood in the context of the statutory requirement concerning fraudulent conduct or intention to cause loss to the Government, together with the purpose of enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 261 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The statutory language remains unchanged, and the provision has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Central Memory Formula
GOVERNMENT REVENUE STAMP + REMOVE OR EFFACE WRITING OR REMOVE USED STAMP + PURPOSE OF REUSE + FRAUD OR INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS = SECTION 183 BNS
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 183
Q1. What does Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 183 punishes a person who fraudulently, or with intent to cause loss to the Government, removes or effaces a writing or document from a substance bearing a Government-issued revenue stamp, or removes a revenue stamp from a writing or document for which it has already been used, in order that the stamp may be used for a different writing or document.
The provision addresses deliberate interference with stamped documents or materials for the purpose of enabling the reuse of a Government revenue stamp.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to three years, or fine, or both.
Memory Formula:
REMOVE WRITING OR REMOVE STAMP + PURPOSE OF REUSE + FRAUD OR GOVERNMENT LOSS INTENTION = SECTION 183
Q2. What is the principal object of Section 183?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 183 is to protect Government revenue by preventing the improper reuse of revenue stamps.
A Government revenue stamp is used in connection with a particular writing, document or transaction.
Where the applicable law requires a fresh revenue stamp or payment of stamp duty for another document, a previously used stamp should not be fraudulently made available for reuse.
Section 183 therefore addresses conduct intended to defeat the revenue system by separating a stamp from its original use or removing the original writing from a stamped substance.
Q3. Which provision of the Indian Penal Code corresponds to Section 183 BNS?
Answer:
Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 261 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
The provision has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita with a new section number.
Memory Formula:
183 BNS = 261 IPC
Q4. Has Section 183 introduced a new criminal offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 substantially reproduces the offence previously contained in Section 261 IPC.
The earlier provision also addressed fraudulent removal or effacement of writings from stamped substances and removal of revenue stamps from documents for the purpose of reuse.
The principal legislative change is the renumbering of the provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 183
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 183?
Answer:
The essential ingredients may be understood as follows.
First — Government-issued revenue stamp
The relevant stamp must be issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue.
Second — Previous use of the stamp
The stamp must have been used for a particular writing or document.
Third — Prohibited interference
The accused must remove or efface the writing or document from the stamped substance, or remove the stamp from the writing or document for which it was used.
Fourth — Purpose of enabling reuse
The conduct must be directed toward enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
Fifth — Fraudulent conduct or intention to cause Government loss
The accused must act fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government.
These ingredients must be considered together.
Mere physical alteration of a stamped document does not automatically establish the offence.
Memory Formula:
REVENUE STAMP + ORIGINAL DOCUMENT + REMOVAL OR EFFACEMENT + PURPOSE OF REUSE + FRAUD OR LOSS INTENTION = SECTION 183
Q6. Must the stamp be issued by the Government?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 183 expressly refers to a stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue.
The provision therefore concerns Government revenue stamps rather than ordinary private labels, decorative stamps or unrelated markings.
The prosecution must establish that the relevant article falls within the statutory description.
Q7. What is meant by a Government revenue stamp?
Answer:
A Government revenue stamp is a stamp issued under Government authority for revenue purposes.
Such stamps may be used in connection with instruments, documents or transactions where applicable law requires payment of stamp duty or another revenue charge.
Section 183 protects the integrity of these stamps by prohibiting specified interference intended to facilitate their improper reuse.
Q8. Must the stamp already have been used for a writing or document?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision concerns a stamp that has already been used for a particular writing or document.
The prohibited conduct involves interfering with that original use so that the stamp may be employed for a different writing or document.
The connection between the stamp and its original writing or document is therefore important.
Q9. Is actual reuse of the stamp an essential requirement?
Answer:
Section 183 is framed around removal or effacement carried out in order that the stamp may be used for a different writing or document.
The statutory wording does not expressly require proof that the stamp was successfully reused.
The focus is on the prohibited interference accompanied by the required purpose and mental element.
Therefore, the absence of completed reuse does not automatically exclude liability.
Q10. Must the accused intend that the stamp be used for a different writing or document?
Answer:
Yes.
The expression “in order that such stamp may be used for a different writing or document” identifies the particular purpose addressed by Section 183.
The provision is not concerned with every alteration of a stamped document.
It specifically addresses interference intended to make the stamp available for another writing or document.
Part III — First Form of Prohibited Conduct: Removing or Effacing Writing
Q11. What is the first form of prohibited conduct under Section 183?
Answer:
The first form involves removing or effacing a writing or document from a substance bearing a Government-issued revenue stamp.
The conduct must be carried out fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government, in order that the stamp may be used for a different writing or document.
Q12. What is meant by removing writing from a stamped substance?
Answer:
Removing writing refers to taking away writing or a document from the material on which it appears.
For example, a person may deliberately remove the original writing from stamped paper so that the paper bearing the revenue stamp can be used again.
If the statutory purpose and mental element are established, such conduct may attract Section 183.
Q13. What is meant by effacing writing?
Answer:
Effacing means erasing, obliterating or making writing disappear or become unreadable.
In the context of Section 183, it concerns interference with writing or a document appearing on a substance bearing a Government revenue stamp.
The relevant conduct is directed toward making the stamped substance available for another writing or document.
Q14. What is the difference between removing and effacing writing?
Answer:
Removing generally involves taking the writing or document away from the relevant substance.
Effacing involves erasing or obliterating the writing.
Both forms of conduct are expressly covered by Section 183.
The distinction concerns the method of interference.
The statutory purpose and mental element remain essential.
Q15. What is meant by a substance bearing a Government stamp?
Answer:
The expression refers to a material or substance on which a Government-issued revenue stamp appears.
The statutory language is not restricted to one particular type of document material.
The relevant question is whether the substance bears a Government revenue stamp and whether the accused engages in the prohibited conduct.
Q16. Does Section 183 apply only to ordinary paper?
Answer:
The statutory wording refers to a substance bearing a Government revenue stamp.
It does not expressly confine the provision to ordinary paper.
Therefore, the analysis must focus on the statutory description rather than assuming that the offence is limited to a particular type of material.
Q17. Is every erasure of writing from stamped paper punishable?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 requires more than the physical erasure of writing.
The conduct must be fraudulent or accompanied by intent to cause loss to the Government.
It must also be directed toward enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
An innocent correction or accidental alteration does not automatically establish the offence.
Part IV — Second Form of Prohibited Conduct: Removing a Stamp from a Document
Q18. What is the second form of prohibited conduct under Section 183?
Answer:
The second form involves removing a Government revenue stamp from a writing or document for which the stamp has already been used.
The removal must be carried out with the statutory purpose of enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document, together with the required fraudulent conduct or intention to cause Government loss.
Q19. What is meant by removing a stamp from a document?
Answer:
Removing a stamp from a document means separating the stamp from the writing or document for which it was used.
For example, a person may detach a revenue stamp from an earlier document with the intention of using that stamp for another document.
Such conduct may attract Section 183 where the remaining statutory ingredients are established.
Q20. Must the stamp have been used for the original document?
Answer:
Yes.
The statutory wording refers to a stamp which has been used for the writing or document from which it is removed.
This requirement is important because Section 183 concerns the improper reuse of stamps already associated with an earlier writing or document.
Q21. Is removing an unused revenue stamp from a document automatically punishable?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 concerns a stamp that has been used for the relevant writing or document.
If the stamp has not previously been used for that writing or document, the particular requirement concerning previous use may not be satisfied.
The facts must be examined according to the statutory wording.
Q22. Must the removed stamp be successfully affixed to another document?
Answer:
No express requirement of successful reuse appears in Section 183.
The provision addresses removal carried out in order that the stamp may be used for a different writing or document.
Therefore, the prohibited purpose is important even if the intended reuse does not ultimately occur.
Q23. Can Section 183 apply where the stamp is removed but later recovered?
Answer:
Yes.
Recovery of the stamp does not automatically exclude liability.
If the accused performed the prohibited removal with the required fraudulent purpose or intention to cause Government loss and with the purpose of enabling reuse, the statutory ingredients may be satisfied.
Part V — Fraudulent Conduct and Intention to Cause Government Loss
Q24. Is fraudulent conduct an essential element of Section 183?
Answer:
Section 183 expressly refers to conduct performed fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government.
Therefore, the prosecution must establish the applicable statutory mental element.
Fraudulent conduct is one of the alternatives expressly recognised by the provision.
Q25. What is meant by acting fraudulently?
Answer:
Acting fraudulently involves the legal concept of fraud under the applicable criminal law.
In the context of Section 183, it may involve deliberately interfering with a stamped document for the prohibited purpose of making an already used revenue stamp available for reuse.
The precise legal meaning of fraud must be determined by reference to the applicable statutory definitions and principles.
Q26. What is meant by intention to cause loss to the Government?
Answer:
It refers to an intention to cause loss to the Government through the prohibited interference with a revenue stamp or stamped document.
For example, a person may remove a stamp from an earlier document intending to reuse it on another document and thereby avoid paying the revenue charge otherwise payable.
Such circumstances may indicate the intention contemplated by Section 183.
Q27. Must both fraud and intention to cause Government loss be proved?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 uses the expression “fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government”.
The statutory wording provides alternative mental elements.
The prosecution must establish the applicable requirement, but both alternatives need not be treated as cumulative conditions in every case.
Memory Formula:
FRAUDULENTLY OR WITH INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS
Q28. Is actual financial loss to the Government necessary?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 expressly refers to fraudulent conduct or intention to cause loss to the Government.
It does not separately require proof that the Government actually suffered the intended loss.
Therefore, the absence of completed financial loss does not automatically exclude liability where the prohibited conduct and required mental elements are established.
Q29. Must the accused obtain personal financial gain?
Answer:
No.
Section 183 does not expressly require the accused to obtain personal financial gain.
The statutory requirements concern the prohibited interference, the purpose of enabling reuse, and the specified fraudulent conduct or intention to cause Government loss.
Q30. Is negligence alone sufficient?
Answer:
No.
Negligence alone does not satisfy the express requirements of Section 183.
The provision addresses fraudulent conduct or conduct accompanied by intent to cause Government loss, together with the purpose of enabling reuse.
An accidental alteration of a stamped document does not automatically establish the offence.
Part VI — Purpose of Enabling Reuse
Q31. Why is the purpose of enabling reuse important?
Answer:
The purpose of enabling reuse distinguishes Section 183 from ordinary alteration or destruction of a document.
The provision specifically concerns removing or effacing writing, or removing a used stamp, so that the stamp may be used for another writing or document.
This purpose connects the prohibited conduct with the protection of Government revenue.
Q32. Must the new writing or document already exist?
Answer:
Section 183 does not expressly require the different writing or document to have already been prepared.
The statutory focus is on the purpose of enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
The prosecution must establish that the accused acted with the required purpose.
Q33. Must the accused personally intend to reuse the stamp?
Answer:
Section 183 refers to conduct performed in order that the stamp may be used for a different writing or document.
The wording does not expressly require that the accused must personally carry out the subsequent reuse.
The relevant issue is whether the prohibited interference was performed for the statutory purpose.
Q34. Is mere preparation to reuse a stamp sufficient?
Answer:
Section 183 requires one of the specified acts of interference.
A mere thought or plan to reuse a revenue stamp, without removing or effacing the writing or removing the stamp in the prohibited manner, does not by itself establish the completed offence.
The prosecution must establish the relevant conduct and mental elements.
Q35. Can Section 183 apply even if the intended reuse fails?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision does not expressly require successful reuse.
If the accused removes or effaces writing, or removes the relevant stamp, with the statutory purpose and required mental element, the fact that the stamp is never subsequently reused does not automatically exclude liability.
Part VII — Practical Illustrations
Q36. Illustration 1 — Erasing writing from stamped paper
Answer:
A possesses a document written on paper bearing a Government revenue stamp.
The stamp has already been used for that document.
A fraudulently erases the writing so that the stamped paper may be used for another document.
A may be liable under Section 183 because the conduct involves fraudulent effacement of writing for the purpose of enabling reuse.
Q37. Illustration 2 — Removing a revenue stamp from an earlier document
Answer:
B possesses a document bearing a Government revenue stamp that has already been used for that document.
B deliberately removes the stamp with the intention of using it on another document to avoid paying the applicable Government revenue charge.
B may be liable under Section 183.
Q38. Illustration 3 — Removing writing with intent to cause Government loss
Answer:
C removes writing from a stamped substance.
C intends that the stamp be used for another document so that the Government will lose revenue otherwise payable.
C may be liable under Section 183 because the conduct involves the specified interference and intention to cause Government loss.
Q39. Illustration 4 — Accidental damage to a stamped document
Answer:
D accidentally spills liquid on a stamped document.
The writing becomes unreadable.
D has no fraudulent purpose, no intention to cause Government loss and no purpose of enabling the stamp to be reused.
The accidental damage alone does not establish Section 183.
Q40. Illustration 5 — Removing a stamp for preservation without intention to reuse
Answer:
E removes a revenue stamp from an old document solely for preservation.
E has no fraudulent purpose, no intention to cause Government loss and no purpose of enabling the stamp to be used for another writing or document.
The facts do not, by themselves, establish the offence under Section 183.
Q41. Illustration 6 — Stamp recovered before reuse
Answer:
F fraudulently removes a revenue stamp from a previously stamped document intending that it be used for another document.
An official discovers the conduct and recovers the stamp before it is reused.
Section 183 may still apply because successful reuse is not expressly required.
Q42. Illustration 7 — Removal without personal financial gain
Answer:
G removes a used Government revenue stamp from a document with the intention of causing loss to the Government by enabling the stamp to be reused.
G does not personally receive money or other financial benefit.
Section 183 may still apply because personal financial gain is not an express statutory requirement.
Q43. Illustration 8 — Removing an unused stamp
Answer:
H removes a revenue stamp that has not been used for the document.
The particular requirement concerning a stamp already used for the writing or document may not be satisfied.
The conduct must be assessed according to the actual statutory ingredients.
Q44. Illustration 9 — Reuse intended for another person’s document
Answer:
J fraudulently removes a used revenue stamp from an earlier document intending that another person will use the stamp for a different document.
Section 183 may apply because the statutory purpose concerns enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
The wording does not expressly require the accused personally to perform the later reuse.
Q45. Illustration 10 — Ordinary correction of writing
Answer:
K makes a lawful correction to a stamped document.
K does not remove or efface the writing for the purpose of making the stamp available for another document.
K has no fraudulent purpose or intention to cause Government loss.
The correction alone does not establish Section 183.
Part VIII — Punishment and Classification
Q46. What is the punishment under Section 183 BNS?
Answer:
Section 183 prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both.
The imprisonment may be simple or rigorous.
The maximum term of imprisonment is three years.
The court may impose imprisonment, fine, or both, subject to the applicable law.
Memory Formula:
SECTION 183 = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH
Q47. Is imprisonment mandatory under Section 183?
Answer:
No.
The statutory wording provides for imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Therefore, imprisonment is not the only available punishment.
The sentence must be determined according to the applicable law and circumstances.
Q48. Does Section 183 prescribe a fixed amount of fine?
Answer:
No fixed amount of fine appears in the supplied statutory wording.
The provision permits punishment by fine.
The amount must be determined in accordance with the applicable law.
Q49. Is Section 183 cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 183 is a cognizable offence.
This means that the police possess the powers associated with cognizable offences, subject to the applicable procedural law.
Classification: Cognizable.
Q50. Is Section 183 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 183 is a bailable offence.
The accused is entitled to bail in accordance with the applicable procedural provisions governing bailable offences.
Classification: Bailable.
Q51. Which court is competent to try an offence under Section 183?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, an offence under Section 183 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Complete Classification:
COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Part IX — Important Legal Distinctions
Q52. What is the difference between Section 183 and Section 184 BNS?
Answer:
Both provisions concern Government-issued revenue stamps, but they address different conduct.
Section 183 — Effacing Writing or Removing a Stamp for Reuse
Section 183 concerns fraudulent removal or effacement of writing from stamped substances, or removal of used revenue stamps from documents, for the purpose of enabling their reuse.
Section 184 — Using Government Stamp Known to Have Been Before Used
Section 184 concerns fraudulent use of a Government revenue stamp that the accused knows has already been used.
Principal Difference
Section 183 addresses interference intended to make a stamp available for reuse.
Section 184 addresses the prohibited actual use of a previously used stamp.
Punishment Difference
Section 183: Imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
Section 184: Imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
Memory Formula:
183 = PREPARE USED STAMP FOR REUSE THROUGH PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE
184 = FRAUDULENTLY REUSE THE USED STAMP
Q53. What is the difference between Section 183 and Section 185 BNS?
Answer:
Section 183 concerns removing or effacing writing from a stamped substance or removing a used revenue stamp from its original writing or document so that the stamp may be used again.
Section 185 concerns fraudulent erasure or removal of marks indicating that a revenue stamp has already been used.
It also covers specified knowing possession, sale or disposal of altered or used stamps.
Principal Difference
Section 183 focuses on interference with the original writing, document or attachment of the stamp.
Section 185 focuses on interference with the mark indicating previous use and specified dealings in altered or used stamps.
Memory Formula:
183 = REMOVE WRITING OR REMOVE STAMP
185 = REMOVE USED MARK
Q54. What is the difference between removing writing and removing a stamp?
Answer:
Removing or effacing writing involves interfering with the writing or document appearing on a substance bearing a revenue stamp.
Removing a stamp involves separating the stamp from the writing or document for which it has already been used.
Both forms of conduct are covered by Section 183 where the required statutory purpose and mental element are established.
Q55. What is the difference between intention to reuse and actual reuse?
Answer:
Intention to reuse concerns the purpose for which the accused interferes with the stamped document or stamp.
Actual reuse concerns the subsequent use of the stamp for another writing or document.
Section 183 focuses on the prohibited interference performed for the purpose of enabling reuse.
It does not expressly require proof that reuse was successfully completed.
Q56. Can the same conduct raise questions under Sections 183 and 184?
Answer:
Yes, depending on the circumstances.
For example, a person may fraudulently remove a revenue stamp from an earlier document with the intention of reusing it.
The removal may raise a question under Section 183.
If the person subsequently uses the stamp knowing it has already been used, and does so fraudulently or with intent to cause Government loss, Section 184 may also become relevant.
Each offence must be established according to its own statutory ingredients.
Part X — Legislative Position Under the BNS
Q57. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 183 BNS?
Answer:
Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 261 IPC.
The offence has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Memory Formula:
BNS 183 = IPC 261
Q58. Has the statutory language changed under Section 183 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
The provision has been retained under the BNS without substantive alteration.
The principal change is its new section number.
Q59. Has the punishment changed under Section 183 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied statutory text and commentary, the punishment remains imprisonment of either description extending up to three years, or fine, or both.
No substantive change in punishment is identified in the supplied commentary.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 183 criminalises fraudulent interference with Government revenue stamps and stamped writings or documents for the purpose of enabling stamp reuse.
2. Relevant Article
A stamp issued by the Government for revenue purposes.
3. First Form of Prohibited Conduct
Removing or effacing writing or a document from a substance bearing a Government revenue stamp.
4. Second Form of Prohibited Conduct
Removing a revenue stamp from the writing or document for which it has already been used.
5. Purpose
The conduct must be directed toward enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
6. Required Mental Element
Fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss to the Government.
7. Actual Reuse
Successful reuse is not expressly required.
8. Actual Government Loss
Actual financial loss is not expressly required.
9. Personal Financial Gain
Personal financial gain is not an express statutory ingredient.
10. Negligence
Negligence alone does not satisfy the statutory requirements.
11. Punishment
Imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.
12. Classification
Cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
13. IPC Equivalent
Section 261 IPC.
14. Legislative Position
According to the supplied commentary, the provision has been retained without substantive change.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 183 BNS.
Title: Effacing Writing from Substance Bearing Government Stamp, or Removing from Document a Stamp Used for It, with Intent to Cause Loss to Government.
IPC Equivalent: Section 261 IPC.
Protected Interest: Government revenue and integrity of the revenue-stamp system.
Relevant Stamp: Government-issued revenue stamp.
First Prohibited Act: Removing or effacing writing or a document from a stamped substance.
Second Prohibited Act: Removing a used revenue stamp from the writing or document for which it was used.
Purpose of Enabling Reuse Required: Yes.
Fraudulent Conduct or Intent to Cause Government Loss Required: Yes.
Both Fraud and Intent to Cause Loss Required: No; the statutory wording provides alternatives.
Actual Reuse Required: No express requirement.
Actual Government Loss Required: No express requirement.
Personal Financial Gain Required: No express requirement.
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.
Cognizability: Cognizable.
Bailability: Bailable.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 183 concerns fictitious postage stamps.
Incorrect.
Section 183 concerns Government-issued revenue stamps and interference with writings or documents for the purpose of enabling stamp reuse.
Trap 2 — Every erasure of writing from stamped paper is punishable.
Incorrect.
The statutory purpose and required fraudulent conduct or intention to cause Government loss must be established.
Trap 3 — The stamp need not have been used for the original writing or document.
Incorrect.
The provision concerns stamps used for the relevant writing or document.
Trap 4 — Section 183 covers only removal of writing.
Incorrect.
It also covers removal of a used revenue stamp from the writing or document for which it was used.
Trap 5 — Section 183 covers only removal of stamps.
Incorrect.
It also covers removing or effacing writing or documents from stamped substances.
Trap 6 — Successful reuse must be proved.
Incorrect.
The provision focuses on prohibited interference performed for the purpose of enabling reuse.
Trap 7 — The different writing or document must already exist.
Incorrect.
The statutory wording does not expressly impose this requirement.
Trap 8 — The accused must personally reuse the stamp.
Incorrect.
The wording focuses on enabling the stamp to be used for another writing or document.
Trap 9 — Actual financial loss to the Government must be proved.
Incorrect.
Actual financial loss is not expressly required.
Trap 10 — Personal financial gain must be established.
Incorrect.
Personal financial gain is not an express statutory ingredient.
Trap 11 — Negligence alone is sufficient.
Incorrect.
The statutory purpose and mental element must be established.
Trap 12 — Both fraud and intent to cause Government loss must always be proved.
Incorrect.
The statutory wording uses “or”.
Trap 13 — Section 183 prescribes imprisonment only.
Incorrect.
The punishment is imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
Trap 14 — Section 183 prescribes imprisonment up to two years.
Incorrect.
The maximum imprisonment is three years.
Trap 15 — Section 183 is non-cognizable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is cognizable.
Trap 16 — Section 183 is non-bailable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is bailable.
Trap 17 — Section 183 is triable by any Magistrate.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trap 18 — Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 183 IPC.
Incorrect.
Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 261 IPC.
Trap 19 — Sections 183 and 184 deal with identical conduct.
Incorrect.
Section 183 concerns prohibited interference intended to enable stamp reuse.
Section 184 concerns fraudulent actual use of a previously used revenue stamp.
Trap 20 — Sections 183 and 185 both exclusively concern erasure of cancellation marks.
Incorrect.
Section 183 concerns removal or effacement of writing and removal of stamps from documents.
Section 185 concerns erasure or removal of marks indicating previous use and specified dealings in altered or used stamps.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 183 — EFFACING WRITING FROM SUBSTANCE BEARING GOVERNMENT STAMP, OR REMOVING FROM DOCUMENT A STAMP USED FOR IT, WITH INTENT TO CAUSE LOSS TO GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT-ISSUED REVENUE STAMP
- ●
STAMP USED FOR ORIGINAL WRITING OR DOCUMENT
- ●
REMOVE OR EFFACE WRITING FROM STAMPED SUBSTANCE
OR
REMOVE USED STAMP FROM ORIGINAL WRITING OR DOCUMENT
- ●
PURPOSE OF ENABLING USE FOR A DIFFERENT WRITING OR DOCUMENT
- ●
FRAUDULENTLY OR WITH INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS
=
SECTION 183 BNS
PUNISHMENT = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH
CLASSIFICATION = COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT = SECTION 261 IPC
DISTINCTION FROM RELATED SECTIONS
183 = REMOVE WRITING OR REMOVE STAMP TO ENABLE REUSE.
184 = FRAUDULENTLY USE A PREVIOUSLY USED REVENUE STAMP.
185 = ERASE MARK INDICATING PREVIOUS USE OR ENGAGE IN SPECIFIED DEALINGS IN USED STAMPS.
186 = PROHIBITION OF FICTITIOUS POSTAGE STAMPS.
Key Takeaway
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 protects Government revenue by criminalising specified interference with stamped writings, documents and revenue stamps for the purpose of enabling their improper reuse.
The provision covers two principal forms of conduct.
The first involves removing or effacing writing or a document from a substance bearing a Government revenue stamp.
The second involves removing a stamp from the writing or document for which it has already been used.
The prohibited conduct must be fraudulent or accompanied by an intention to cause loss to the Government, and it must be directed toward enabling the stamp to be used for a different writing or document.
The provision does not expressly require successful reuse of the stamp, actual financial loss to the Government or personal financial gain.
However, the prosecution must establish the prohibited act and the required statutory purpose and mental element.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to three years, or fine, or both.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 183 BNS corresponds to Section 261 IPC, and the statutory language has been retained without substantive alteration.
Final Memory Line:
183 = GOVERNMENT REVENUE STAMP + REMOVE OR EFFACE WRITING OR REMOVE USED STAMP + PURPOSE OF REUSE + FRAUD OR INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH.
