- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 185 - Erasure of Mark Denoting That Stamp Has Been Used
Introduction
Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the fraudulent removal or erasure of marks placed on Government-issued revenue stamps to indicate that they have already been used.
The provision is intended to protect Government revenue and prevent the dishonest reuse, circulation or sale of revenue stamps that have already served their lawful purpose.
Revenue stamps are used in connection with transactions and instruments for which the law requires payment of stamp duty or other applicable revenue charges.
Once a revenue stamp has been used, a mark may be placed or impressed upon it to indicate that it has already been utilised.
Such a mark helps prevent the same stamp from being improperly reused.
Section 185 criminalises certain acts involving these stamps, including fraudulently erasing or removing a mark indicating previous use.
The provision also extends to knowingly possessing, selling or disposing of stamps from which such marks have been erased or removed.
Additionally, it prohibits selling or disposing of revenue stamps that the accused knows have already been used.
An important feature of Section 185 is that it covers both interference with the cancellation mark and subsequent dealings in the relevant stamps.
The provision therefore addresses not only the person who removes the mark but also persons who knowingly participate in the circulation of such stamps.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 185 BNS corresponds to Section 263 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 + FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OF USED MARK OR KNOWING DEALINGS IN USED STAMPS = SECTION 185 BNS
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 185
Q1. What does Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 185 punishes specified conduct involving Government-issued revenue stamps that have already been used.
The provision covers a person who fraudulently, or with intent to cause loss to the Government, erases or removes a mark placed on a revenue stamp to indicate that it has been used.
It also covers knowingly possessing, selling or disposing of a stamp from which such a mark has been erased or removed.
Further, it covers selling or disposing of a revenue stamp that the accused knows has already been used.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to three years, or fine, or both.
Memory Formula:
ERASE USED MARK + KNOWINGLY POSSESS ALTERED STAMP + SELL USED STAMP = SECTION 185
Q2. What is the principal object of Section 185?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 185 is to protect Government revenue by preventing the dishonest reuse and circulation of revenue stamps.
Revenue stamps serve as evidence of payment of an applicable revenue charge or stamp duty.
Once a stamp has been used, it should not be improperly presented as an unused stamp for another transaction.
Marks indicating previous use help prevent this form of misuse.
Section 185 therefore protects the integrity of the revenue-stamp system by penalising specified acts intended to defeat or circumvent these safeguards.
Q3. Which provision of the Indian Penal Code corresponds to Section 185 BNS?
Answer:
Section 185 BNS corresponds to Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
The provision has therefore been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita with a new section number.
Memory Formula:
185 BNS = 263 IPC
Q4. Has Section 185 introduced a new criminal offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 185 substantially reproduces the offence previously contained in Section 263 IPC.
The conduct prohibited under the earlier provision remains prohibited under the BNS.
The principal change is the renumbering of the provision.
Its central purpose continues to be the prevention of fraudulent interference with used revenue stamps and their improper circulation.
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 185
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 185?
Answer:
Section 185 contains different forms of prohibited conduct, and the ingredients depend on the particular form alleged.
First — Erasure or removal of a mark
The accused erases or removes a mark placed or impressed upon a Government-issued revenue stamp to indicate that it has been used.
The act must be done fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government.
Second — Knowing possession or dealing in an altered stamp
The accused knowingly possesses, sells or disposes of a revenue stamp from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
Third — Selling or disposing of a used stamp
The accused sells or disposes of a revenue stamp knowing that it has already been used.
These are alternative forms of prohibited conduct.
The prosecution need not establish all three forms in every case.
Memory Formula:
FRAUDULENT ERASURE OR KNOWING POSSESSION OR KNOWING SALE OR DISPOSAL = SECTION 185
Q6. Must the stamp be issued by the Government?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 185 expressly refers to a stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue.
The statutory requirement distinguishes the relevant revenue stamps from ordinary labels, stickers or decorative stamps.
The prosecution must establish that the article falls within the description contained in Section 185.
Q7. What is meant by a revenue stamp?
Answer:
A revenue stamp is a stamp issued by the Government for revenue purposes.
Such stamps may be used in connection with transactions or instruments where applicable law requires payment of stamp duty or another relevant revenue charge.
Section 185 is specifically concerned with Government-issued revenue stamps.
The provision should not automatically be extended to every article commonly described as a stamp.
Q8. What is meant by a mark denoting that a stamp has been used?
Answer:
A mark denoting previous use is a mark placed or impressed upon a revenue stamp to indicate that it has already been utilised.
Its purpose is to distinguish a used stamp from an unused stamp.
The mark may take the form of a cancellation or another recognised indication of use.
The particular form depends on the applicable system for marking the stamp.
Section 185 protects such marks against fraudulent erasure or removal.
Q9. Why are used marks important?
Answer:
Marks indicating previous use help prevent revenue stamps from being improperly reused.
Without such marks, a used stamp might be presented as though it had not previously served its purpose.
This could undermine the system for collecting Government revenue.
Section 185 therefore protects the reliability of the marks used to identify stamps that have already been utilised.
Part III — Erasure or Removal of Marks
Q10. What conduct is prohibited under the first part of Section 185?
Answer:
The first part prohibits fraudulently, or with intent to cause loss to the Government, erasing or removing a mark placed or impressed upon a Government-issued revenue stamp to indicate that it has been used.
The provision therefore requires an act of erasure or removal accompanied by the specified fraudulent purpose or intention.
Q11. What is meant by erasure of a mark?
Answer:
Erasure refers to eliminating or obliterating a mark.
In the context of Section 185, it concerns removing the visible or otherwise identifiable indication that a revenue stamp has already been used.
For example, a person may attempt to erase a cancellation mark so that the stamp appears unused.
If the statutory requirements are satisfied, the conduct may attract Section 185.
Q12. What is meant by removal of a mark?
Answer:
Removal refers to taking away a mark placed or impressed upon the stamp.
The provision uses both the words “erases” and “removes” to cover interference with the mark indicating previous use.
The important question is whether the accused interfered with the relevant mark in the manner prohibited by the section.
Q13. Must the mark have been placed to indicate previous use?
Answer:
Yes.
The statutory language specifically refers to a mark placed or impressed upon the stamp for the purpose of denoting that the stamp has been used.
Therefore, removing an unrelated mark does not automatically satisfy this particular ingredient.
The prosecution must establish the relevant purpose of the mark.
Q14. Is every removal of a mark from a revenue stamp punishable?
Answer:
No.
The first part of Section 185 requires the removal or erasure to be fraudulent or accompanied by an intention to cause loss to the Government.
An accidental removal of a mark does not automatically establish the offence.
The required mental element must be considered.
Q15. Is fraudulent intention necessary?
Answer:
The first part of Section 185 uses alternative expressions.
It applies where the erasure or removal is done fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government.
Therefore, the prosecution must establish at least one of these specified mental elements for this form of the offence.
Memory Formula:
FRAUDULENTLY OR WITH INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS
Q16. What is meant by acting fraudulently?
Answer:
Acting fraudulently involves the legal concept of fraud as understood under the applicable provisions of criminal law.
In the context of Section 185, it may involve deliberately removing a cancellation mark with the prohibited fraudulent purpose.
The exact legal meaning must be determined by reference to the applicable statutory definitions and principles.
The word should not be treated as synonymous with every accidental or unauthorised act.
Q17. What is meant by intent to cause loss to the Government?
Answer:
It refers to an intention to cause loss to the Government through the prohibited interference with the revenue stamp.
For example, a person may erase a used mark intending that the stamp be reused without payment of the revenue charge otherwise payable.
Such circumstances may indicate the intention specified in Section 185.
The required intention must be established from the evidence.
Q18. Is actual financial loss to the Government necessary?
Answer:
The first part of Section 185 refers to acting fraudulently or with intent to cause loss to the Government.
It does not expressly require proof that the Government actually suffered the intended loss.
Therefore, the absence of a completed financial loss does not automatically exclude liability where the prohibited act and required mental element are established.
Q19. Is an accidental erasure punishable under Section 185?
Answer:
An accidental erasure does not, by itself, satisfy the first part of Section 185.
The provision requires the erasure or removal to be fraudulent or accompanied by intent to cause loss to the Government.
If the mark was accidentally damaged without the required mental element, the completed offence under this part is not established merely by the physical alteration.
Part IV — Knowing Possession of an Altered Revenue Stamp
Q20. Does Section 185 prohibit possession of a stamp from which a used mark has been erased?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 185 expressly covers knowingly possessing a revenue stamp from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
This means that liability is not confined to the person who originally erased or removed the mark.
A person who knowingly possesses the altered stamp may also fall within the provision.
Q21. Is knowledge important for the possession offence?
Answer:
Yes.
The statutory language expressly uses the word “knowingly” in connection with possession of the altered stamp.
The prosecution must therefore establish the required knowledge.
Mere possession, without proof of the relevant mental element, should not automatically be treated as sufficient.
Q22. Must the person possessing the stamp have personally erased the mark?
Answer:
No.
Section 185 separately covers knowingly possessing a stamp from which the mark has been erased or removed.
Therefore, the accused need not be the person who originally performed the erasure.
A person who subsequently knowingly possesses the altered stamp may fall within the provision.
Q23. Must the altered stamp actually be reused before possession becomes punishable?
Answer:
No.
Section 185 expressly addresses knowing possession of the altered stamp.
It does not require proof that the person possessing the stamp subsequently reused it.
The knowing possession itself is a separate form of prohibited conduct.
Q24. Is innocent possession automatically punishable?
Answer:
No.
The statutory wording requires knowing possession.
A person who possesses a stamp without the required knowledge does not automatically satisfy the mental element of this part of Section 185.
The prosecution must establish the relevant facts and knowledge.
Part V — Selling or Disposing of Altered Revenue Stamps
Q25. Does Section 185 prohibit selling stamps from which used marks have been removed?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 185 expressly covers knowingly selling a stamp from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
The provision therefore extends beyond the original act of erasure.
It also addresses the subsequent circulation of altered stamps.
Q26. What is meant by selling an altered revenue stamp?
Answer:
Selling refers to transferring the stamp in a transaction involving sale.
Under Section 185, the relevant conduct concerns knowingly selling a revenue stamp from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
The required knowledge is important when assessing liability.
Q27. Does Section 185 also prohibit disposing of an altered revenue stamp?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly includes knowingly disposing of a stamp from which the used mark has been erased or removed.
Disposal is broader than sale.
Depending on the circumstances, it may involve transferring or otherwise dealing with the stamp without necessarily receiving payment.
Q28. Must the accused receive money before liability can arise?
Answer:
No.
Section 185 includes disposal as well as sale.
Therefore, the provision is not restricted to transactions involving payment.
The relevant conduct and required knowledge must be established according to the particular statutory limb.
Part VI — Selling or Disposing of Stamps Known to Have Been Used
Q29. Does Section 185 prohibit selling a stamp known to have been used?
Answer:
Yes.
The final part of Section 185 expressly covers selling a revenue stamp that the accused knows has already been used.
This is important because the provision is not limited to stamps from which cancellation marks have been erased.
It also addresses the sale of stamps known to have been used.
Q30. Does Section 185 prohibit disposing of a stamp known to have been used?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly includes disposing of a revenue stamp that the accused knows has been used.
The relevant mental element is knowledge of previous use.
The prosecution must establish that the accused knew the stamp had already been used.
Q31. Must the used mark have been erased before this final part applies?
Answer:
No.
The final part of Section 185 concerns selling or disposing of a stamp that the accused knows has been used.
It does not expressly require that the mark indicating previous use must first have been erased.
This distinguishes the final part from the earlier provisions concerning altered stamps.
Q32. Is mere possession of an unaltered used stamp punishable under the final part of Section 185?
Answer:
The final part specifically refers to selling or disposing of a stamp known to have been used.
It does not expressly criminalise mere possession of every unaltered used revenue stamp.
The separate possession provision concerns stamps from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
This distinction is important in examinations.
Memory Formula:
ALTERED STAMP = KNOWING POSSESSION, SALE OR DISPOSAL
USED STAMP = KNOWING SALE OR DISPOSAL
Part VII — Importance of Knowledge and Intention
Q33. What mental elements are relevant under Section 185?
Answer:
Section 185 contains different mental elements for different forms of prohibited conduct.
For erasure or removal, the provision requires fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss to the Government.
For possession of an altered stamp, the provision expressly requires knowledge.
For selling or disposing of an altered stamp, the relevant wording also requires knowledge.
For selling or disposing of a stamp already used, the accused must know that the stamp has been used.
Memory Formula:
ERASURE = FRAUD OR INTENT TO CAUSE LOSS
ALTERED STAMP DEALINGS = KNOWLEDGE
USED STAMP SALE OR DISPOSAL = KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS USE
Q34. Is the same mental element required for every part of Section 185?
Answer:
No.
The section uses different expressions for different forms of conduct.
The first part refers to fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss to the Government.
The later parts use expressions involving knowledge.
Therefore, the mental element must be identified according to the particular conduct alleged.
Q35. Why is the distinction between intention and knowledge important?
Answer:
Intention concerns the result or purpose toward which a person’s conduct is directed.
Knowledge concerns awareness of relevant facts.
Section 185 uses these concepts in different parts of the provision.
A proper legal analysis must identify whether the prosecution is required to establish fraudulent conduct, an intention to cause Government loss, or knowledge concerning the altered or previously used stamp.
Part VIII — Practical Illustrations
Q36. Illustration 1 — Fraudulent removal of a cancellation mark
Answer:
A possesses a Government-issued revenue stamp that has already been used.
The stamp bears a cancellation mark indicating previous use.
A deliberately erases the mark with the fraudulent purpose of making the stamp appear unused.
A may be liable under Section 185 because the act involves fraudulent erasure of a mark indicating that the stamp has been used.
Q37. Illustration 2 — Removal intended to cause Government loss
Answer:
B removes a cancellation mark from a used Government revenue stamp.
B intends that the stamp be reused so that the Government will lose revenue otherwise payable.
B may be liable under Section 185 because the act is accompanied by the intention to cause loss to the Government.
Q38. Illustration 3 — Accidental damage to a cancellation mark
Answer:
C accidentally damages a revenue stamp while handling a document.
The damage partially removes the mark indicating previous use.
C has no fraudulent purpose and no intention to cause loss to the Government.
The accidental damage alone does not establish the first part of Section 185.
The required mental element is absent.
Q39. Illustration 4 — Knowing possession of an altered stamp
Answer:
D obtains a Government revenue stamp from which the cancellation mark has already been erased.
D knows that the mark was removed.
D may be liable under Section 185 for knowingly possessing the altered stamp.
D need not have personally erased the mark.
Q40. Illustration 5 — Selling an altered stamp
Answer:
E possesses a revenue stamp from which the used mark has been removed.
E knows that the mark was erased.
E sells the stamp to another person.
E may be liable under Section 185 for knowingly selling the altered stamp.
Q41. Illustration 6 — Giving away an altered stamp
Answer:
F knowingly possesses a revenue stamp from which the cancellation mark has been erased.
F transfers the stamp to another person without receiving payment.
The conduct may amount to disposal of the altered stamp under Section 185.
The absence of payment does not automatically exclude liability.
Q42. Illustration 7 — Selling a used stamp without erasing its mark
Answer:
G possesses a Government revenue stamp that has already been used.
The mark indicating previous use remains visible.
G knows that the stamp has been used and sells it.
The final part of Section 185 may apply because it expressly covers selling a stamp known to have been used.
Erasure of the mark is not required for this particular form of conduct.
Q43. Illustration 8 — Innocent possession without knowledge
Answer:
H receives a revenue stamp from which the cancellation mark has been erased.
H does not know that the mark was removed.
Mere possession without the required knowledge does not automatically establish the knowing-possession offence under Section 185.
Q44. Illustration 9 — Disposal of a stamp known to have been used
Answer:
J knows that a Government revenue stamp has already been used.
J transfers the stamp to another person.
Depending on the circumstances, the transfer may constitute disposal of a stamp known to have been used.
Section 185 expressly addresses this form of conduct.
Q45. Illustration 10 — Ordinary unused revenue stamp
Answer:
K possesses a genuine Government revenue stamp that has never been used.
No cancellation mark has been erased or removed.
K has not engaged in any other conduct prohibited by Section 185.
Mere possession of the genuine unused stamp does not establish the offence.
Part IX — Punishment and Classification
Q46. What is the punishment under Section 185 BNS?
Answer:
Section 185 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 185 = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH
Q47. Is imprisonment mandatory under Section 185?
Answer:
No.
The statutory wording provides for imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Therefore, imprisonment is not prescribed as the only permissible punishment.
The sentence depends on the applicable legal principles and the circumstances of the case.
Q48. Does Section 185 prescribe a fixed amount of fine?
Answer:
No fixed fine amount appears in the supplied statutory wording.
The provision states that the offender may be punished with fine.
The amount must be determined in accordance with the applicable law.
Q49. Is Section 185 cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 185 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 185 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 185 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 185?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, an offence under Section 185 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Complete Classification:
COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Part X — Important Legal Distinctions
Q52. What is the difference between Section 185 and Section 186 BNS?
Answer:
Both provisions concern stamps, but they address different types of conduct.
Section 185 — Erasure of Mark Denoting That Stamp Has Been Used
Section 185 concerns Government-issued revenue stamps.
It addresses fraudulent erasure or removal of marks indicating previous use, knowing possession or dealings in altered stamps, and selling or disposing of stamps known to have been used.
Section 186 — Prohibition of Fictitious Stamps
Section 186 concerns fictitious postage stamps.
It prohibits specified activities involving their making, uttering, dealing, sale, postal use and possession, as well as certain equipment and materials for their manufacture.
Principal Differences
Section 185 concerns revenue stamps and marks indicating previous use.
Section 186 concerns fictitious postage stamps.
Section 185 prescribes imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
Section 186 prescribes a fine extending up to ₹200.
Memory Formula:
185 = USED REVENUE STAMP
186 = FICTITIOUS POSTAGE STAMP
Q53. What is the difference between erasing a used mark and possessing an altered stamp?
Answer:
Erasing a used mark concerns the act of removing or obliterating the indication of previous use.
The first part of Section 185 requires fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss to the Government.
Possessing an altered stamp concerns knowingly having a stamp from which the relevant mark has already been erased or removed.
The person possessing the stamp need not be the person who originally erased the mark.
Q54. What is the difference between selling an altered stamp and selling a used stamp?
Answer:
Selling an altered stamp involves knowingly selling a revenue stamp from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
Selling a used stamp involves selling a revenue stamp that the accused knows has already been used.
The final form of conduct does not expressly require prior erasure of the mark.
This is an important distinction because the provision covers both altered stamps and stamps known to have been used.
Q55. What is the difference between Section 185 and ordinary theft?
Answer:
Section 185 specifically concerns prohibited conduct involving Government-issued revenue stamps and marks indicating previous use.
Ordinary theft under Section 303 BNS has different statutory ingredients relating to dishonest taking of movable property from another person’s possession without consent.
Section 185 does not require proof of every ingredient of theft.
The offences should therefore be analysed separately.
Depending on the circumstances, the same conduct may raise questions under more than one provision, but each offence must be established according to its own statutory requirements.
Part XI — Legislative Position Under the BNS
Q56. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 185 BNS?
Answer:
Section 185 BNS corresponds to Section 263 IPC.
The offence has been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Memory Formula:
BNS 185 = IPC 263
Q57. Has the statutory language changed under Section 185 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
The provision has been retained as it was under the Indian Penal Code.
The principal change is its new section number under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Q58. Has the punishment changed under Section 185 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 the punishment is identified in the supplied commentary.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 185 addresses fraudulent interference with marks indicating previous use of Government-issued revenue stamps and specified knowing dealings in altered or used stamps.
2. Relevant Article
A stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue.
3. Relevant Mark
A mark placed or impressed upon the stamp to indicate that it has been used.
4. First Form of Prohibited Conduct
Fraudulent erasure or removal of the mark.
5. Alternative Mental Element for Erasure
Intent to cause loss to the Government.
6. Second Form of Prohibited Conduct
Knowing possession, sale or disposal of a stamp from which the relevant mark has been erased or removed.
7. Third Form of Prohibited Conduct
Selling or disposing of a stamp known to have been used.
8. Actual Financial Loss
Actual financial loss is not expressly required for the erasure offence.
9. Knowledge
Knowledge is expressly relevant to possession and the specified sale or disposal offences.
10. Previous Erasure
Previous erasure is relevant to the altered-stamp offences but is not expressly required for selling or disposing of a stamp known to have been used.
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 263 IPC.
14. Legislative Position
According to the supplied commentary, the provision has been retained without substantive change.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 185 BNS.
Title: Erasure of Mark Denoting That Stamp Has Been Used.
IPC Equivalent: Section 263 IPC.
Protected Interest: Government revenue and integrity of the revenue-stamp system.
Relevant Stamp: Government-issued revenue stamp.
Relevant Mark: Mark indicating that the stamp has already been used.
First Prohibited Act: Fraudulent erasure or removal of the used mark.
Alternative Intention: Intent to cause loss to the Government.
Second Prohibited Act: Knowing possession, sale or disposal of an altered stamp.
Third Prohibited Act: Selling or disposing of a stamp known to have been used.
Actual Financial Loss Required: No express requirement.
Personal Erasure Required for Knowing Possession: No.
Prior Erasure Required for Sale of a Used Stamp: No.
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 185 concerns fictitious postage stamps.
Incorrect.
Section 185 concerns Government-issued revenue stamps and marks indicating previous use.
Fictitious postage stamps are addressed under Section 186.
Trap 2 — Every removal of a mark from a revenue stamp is punishable.
Incorrect.
The first part requires fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss to the Government.
Trap 3 — Actual financial loss to the Government must always be proved.
Incorrect.
The first part refers to fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss.
Actual financial loss is not expressly required.
Trap 4 — The accused must personally erase the mark before possession becomes punishable.
Incorrect.
Knowing possession of an altered stamp is separately covered.
Trap 5 — A stamp must be reused before the possession offence applies.
Incorrect.
Knowing possession of a stamp from which the mark has been erased or removed is independently covered.
Trap 6 — Innocent possession automatically establishes liability.
Incorrect.
The possession provision expressly requires knowledge.
Trap 7 — Section 185 prohibits only selling altered stamps.
Incorrect.
It also covers knowing possession and disposal of altered stamps.
Trap 8 — Disposal necessarily requires payment.
Incorrect.
Disposal is not necessarily restricted to a sale involving money.
Trap 9 — A used mark must always have been erased before sale becomes punishable.
Incorrect.
The final part separately covers selling or disposing of a stamp known to have been used.
Trap 10 — Mere possession of every unaltered used stamp is expressly prohibited.
Incorrect.
The separate possession provision concerns stamps from which the mark indicating previous use has been erased or removed.
Trap 11 — The same mental element applies to every form of conduct.
Incorrect.
The section distinguishes fraudulent conduct or intent to cause loss from knowing possession, sale or disposal.
Trap 12 — Section 185 prescribes imprisonment only.
Incorrect.
The punishment is imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
Trap 13 — Section 185 prescribes imprisonment up to seven years.
Incorrect.
The maximum imprisonment is three years.
Trap 14 — Section 185 is non-cognizable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is cognizable.
Trap 15 — Section 185 is non-bailable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is bailable.
Trap 16 — Section 185 is triable only by a Court of Session.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trap 17 — Section 185 BNS corresponds to Section 185 IPC.
Incorrect.
Section 185 BNS corresponds to Section 263 IPC.
Trap 18 — Section 185 and Section 186 BNS deal with identical offences.
Incorrect.
Section 185 concerns used Government revenue stamps.
Section 186 concerns fictitious postage stamps.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 185 — ERASURE OF MARK DENOTING THAT STAMP HAS BEEN USED
GOVERNMENT REVENUE STAMP
- ●
MARK INDICATING PREVIOUS USE
- ●
FRAUDULENT ERASURE OR REMOVAL
OR
ERASURE OR REMOVAL WITH INTENT TO CAUSE GOVERNMENT LOSS
OR
KNOWING POSSESSION, SALE OR DISPOSAL OF ALTERED STAMP
OR
SALE OR DISPOSAL OF STAMP KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN USED
=
SECTION 185 BNS
PUNISHMENT = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH
CLASSIFICATION = COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT = SECTION 263 IPC
DISTINCTION FROM SECTION 186
185 = USED REVENUE STAMPS AND CANCELLATION MARKS.
186 = FICTITIOUS POSTAGE STAMPS.
Key Takeaway
Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 protects Government revenue by criminalising fraudulent interference with marks indicating that revenue stamps have already been used.
The provision covers fraudulent erasure or removal of such marks, erasure or removal with intent to cause loss to the Government, knowing possession or dealings in altered stamps, and selling or disposing of stamps known to have been used.
The law therefore extends beyond the person who physically removes the mark.
It also addresses persons who knowingly participate in the possession, sale or disposal of the relevant stamps.
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 185 BNS corresponds to Section 263 IPC, and the statutory language has been retained without substantive alteration.
Final Memory Line:
185 = USED REVENUE STAMP + FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OF MARK OR KNOWING DEALINGS IN ALTERED OR USED STAMPS = UP TO THREE YEARS OR FINE OR BOTH.
