- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 187 - Person Employed in Mint Causing Coin to Be of Different Weight or Composition from That Fixed by Law
Introduction
Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with misconduct by a person employed in a mint who intentionally causes coins issued from that mint to have a weight or composition different from that prescribed by law.
The provision is intended to protect the integrity, reliability and lawful standards of coin production in India.
Coins issued from a mint must conform to the weight and composition prescribed by law. These requirements help maintain uniformity, authenticity and public confidence in the monetary system.
Where a person employed in a mint deliberately interferes with the production process so that coins will have an unauthorised weight or composition, the conduct may attract criminal liability under Section 187.
The provision covers both an intentional act and an intentional omission of something the employee is legally bound to do, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied.
An important feature is that the section focuses on the intention to cause coins to deviate from legally prescribed standards.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 244 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The statutory language has been retained without substantive alteration.
Central Memory Formula
MINT EMPLOYEE + ACT OR LEGALLY REQUIRED OMISSION + INTENTION TO ALTER COIN WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION = SECTION 187 BNS
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 187
Q1. What does Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 187 provides that a person employed in a mint who does any act, or omits to do something that the person is legally bound to do, with the intention of causing any coin issued from that mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law, shall be punished under the provision.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years, and liability to fine.
The section is concerned with deliberate interference with the legally prescribed standards of coin production.
It covers both positive acts and legally significant omissions.
Memory Formula:
MINT EMPLOYEE + INTENTIONAL DEVIATION FROM LEGAL COIN STANDARDS = SECTION 187
Q2. What is the principal object of Section 187?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 187 is to protect the integrity of coins manufactured and issued from a mint.
Coins must conform to the weight and composition fixed by law.
Unauthorised departures from these standards may undermine the reliability of the coinage system.
The provision therefore seeks to prevent employees of a mint from deliberately interfering with coin production in a manner intended to produce coins of an unlawful weight or composition.
It also reinforces the responsibility of persons entrusted with coin-manufacturing operations.
Q3. Which provision of the Indian Penal Code corresponds to Section 187 BNS?
Answer:
Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 244 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
The offence has therefore been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita with a new section number.
Memory Formula:
187 BNS = 244 IPC
Q4. Has Section 187 introduced a new criminal offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 substantially reproduces the offence previously contained in Section 244 IPC.
The conduct prohibited under the earlier provision remains prohibited under the BNS.
The principal change is the renumbering of the provision.
The offence continues to address deliberate interference by mint employees with the legally prescribed weight or composition of coins.
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 187
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 187?
Answer:
The following elements are essential.
First — Employment in a mint
The accused must be a person employed in a mint.
Second — An act or legally significant omission
The accused must either perform an act or omit to perform something that the accused is legally bound to do.
Third — Intention
The act or omission must be accompanied by the intention of causing a coin issued from that mint to have a different weight or composition.
Fourth — Deviation from legal standards
The intended difference must relate to the weight or composition fixed by law.
These requirements must be considered together.
The mere existence of a defective coin does not automatically establish the offence.
Memory Formula:
EMPLOYMENT + ACT OR DUTY-BASED OMISSION + INTENTION + DIFFERENT WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION = SECTION 187
Q6. Must the accused be employed in a mint?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 187 expressly applies to a person employed in a mint.
This is an important limitation on the scope of the offence.
The provision is directed at persons whose employment connects them with the operations of a mint.
An outsider who has no employment relationship with a mint does not satisfy this particular ingredient merely by interfering with coin production.
However, the conduct of an outsider may raise questions under other applicable criminal provisions.
Q7. Is Section 187 a special offence relating to mint employees?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 187 is a special offence because it expressly requires the accused to be employed in a mint.
Unlike provisions that begin with the general expression “whoever” without further qualification, Section 187 identifies a particular category of persons.
The employment requirement reflects the special responsibilities associated with the manufacture and production of coins.
Q8. Must the accused be a public servant?
Answer:
Section 187 does not expressly require the accused to be a public servant.
The statutory requirement is that the person must be employed in a mint.
Therefore, the important question is whether the employment requirement is satisfied.
The provision should not be explained as applying only to persons formally designated as public servants unless another applicable legal rule makes that distinction relevant.
Q9. Can a technician employed in a mint commit the offence?
Answer:
Yes.
A technician employed in a mint may fall within Section 187 if the technician deliberately performs an act, or omits a legally required act, with the intention of causing coins issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
The particular job title is not the decisive factor.
The relevant considerations are employment in the mint and satisfaction of the remaining statutory ingredients.
Part III — Acts and Omissions Under Section 187
Q10. Does Section 187 cover both acts and omissions?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 187 expressly covers a person who performs an act or omits to perform something that the person is legally bound to do.
This means that criminal liability may arise through deliberate action or through an intentional failure to perform a legal duty.
However, an omission must relate to something the accused is legally bound to do.
Memory Formula:
PROHIBITED ACT OR LEGALLY REQUIRED OMISSION = POSSIBLE SECTION 187 LIABILITY
Q11. What is meant by an act under Section 187?
Answer:
An act refers to positive conduct performed by the accused.
In the context of coin production, it may involve deliberately interfering with machinery, production settings or materials with the intention of causing coins to have an unauthorised weight or composition.
Example:
A mint employee deliberately adjusts a machine with the intention of producing coins lighter than the weight prescribed by law.
Such conduct may attract Section 187 if the other statutory requirements are satisfied.
Q12. What is meant by an omission under Section 187?
Answer:
An omission refers to a failure to perform an act.
However, Section 187 does not criminalise every failure or oversight by a mint employee.
The omitted act must be something the person is legally bound to perform.
For example, if an employee has a legally binding duty to perform a particular production control and deliberately omits that duty with the intention of causing coins to have an unlawful weight or composition, Section 187 may apply.
The existence of the legal duty and the required intention must be established.
Q13. Is every omission by a mint employee punishable under Section 187?
Answer:
No.
The provision requires more than a mere omission.
The accused must omit something that the accused is legally bound to do.
The omission must also be accompanied by the intention specified in the section.
A routine oversight or an omission unrelated to the legally prescribed weight or composition of coins does not automatically constitute the offence.
Q14. Is a breach of an internal workplace instruction sufficient?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
Where liability is based on an omission, Section 187 requires the accused to have omitted something that the accused was legally bound to do.
The prosecution must therefore establish the relevant legal duty.
It should not automatically be assumed that every internal workplace instruction creates a legal obligation for the purposes of the provision.
The required intention must also be proved.
Part IV — Intention Under Section 187
Q15. Is intention an essential ingredient of Section 187?
Answer:
Yes.
Intention is central to Section 187.
The provision expressly requires the act or omission to be committed with the intention of causing a coin issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
This distinguishes deliberate interference with coin production from an ordinary manufacturing error.
Memory Formula:
ACT OR OMISSION + REQUIRED INTENTION = SECTION 187
Q16. What intention must the prosecution establish?
Answer:
The prosecution must establish that the accused intended to cause a coin issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from the legally prescribed standard.
The intention must relate to the deviation from the lawful weight or composition.
A general intention to interfere with equipment, without the required intention concerning coin standards, is not by itself sufficient.
Q17. Is negligence alone sufficient to constitute the offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 expressly requires intention.
A negligent mistake in the coin-production process does not automatically establish the offence.
Example:
A mint employee accidentally enters an incorrect machine setting without intending to produce coins of an unlawful weight or composition.
The resulting error may require investigation and may have administrative consequences.
However, negligence alone does not satisfy the express intention requirement of Section 187.
Q18. Is accidental production of a defective coin sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The accidental production of a coin having an incorrect weight or composition does not automatically establish criminal liability under Section 187.
The prosecution must establish the accused’s employment, the relevant act or legally required omission, and the statutory intention.
A defective coin may be relevant evidence, but its existence alone does not prove all the ingredients.
Q19. Must the accused intend to obtain personal financial gain?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 does not expressly require an intention to obtain financial gain.
The specified intention concerns causing a coin to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
Therefore, the offence may arise even where the accused does not intend to obtain money or other personal benefits.
Q20. Must the accused intend to cause financial loss to the Government?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 does not expressly require an intention to cause financial loss to the Government.
The relevant intention concerns the unlawful alteration of coin weight or composition.
The absence of an intention to cause financial loss does not automatically exclude the offence if the required statutory intention is established.
Part V — Weight and Composition of Coins
Q21. What is meant by the weight of a coin?
Answer:
The weight of a coin refers to its mass.
Coins manufactured under lawful authority are subject to applicable standards governing their production.
Section 187 is concerned with deliberate conduct intended to cause coins issued from a mint to have a weight different from that fixed by law.
Q22. What is meant by the composition of a coin?
Answer:
The composition of a coin refers to the materials or substances from which the coin is made.
This may include the metals or alloys used in its manufacture.
Where the law fixes a particular composition, deliberate conduct intended to cause coins to be issued with a different composition may attract Section 187.
Q23. Does Section 187 cover both excessive and insufficient coin weight?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision refers to a weight different from that fixed by law.
It is not restricted to coins that are lighter than the prescribed weight.
Therefore, an intended deviation involving either greater or lesser weight may fall within the statutory language.
Memory Formula:
TOO HEAVY OR TOO LIGHT — INTENDED DIFFERENCE FROM LEGAL WEIGHT
Q24. Does Section 187 cover changes in metal composition?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly refers to composition.
A mint employee who deliberately interferes with the production process intending to cause coins to contain a composition different from that fixed by law may attract Section 187.
The provision is therefore not limited to changes in weight.
Q25. Must both weight and composition be different?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 uses the expression “weight or composition”.
The statutory wording identifies alternative forms of deviation.
Accordingly, the required intention may concern an unlawful difference in weight, an unlawful difference in composition, or both.
Memory Formula:
DIFFERENT WEIGHT OR DIFFERENT COMPOSITION = RELEVANT DEVIATION
Q26. Why is the expression “fixed by law” important?
Answer:
The expression establishes the legal standard against which the intended deviation must be assessed.
The offence is not concerned with every variation from an informal preference or unofficial manufacturing target.
The prosecution must identify the applicable legal standard and establish that the accused intended the relevant coin to differ from that standard.
This requirement helps distinguish criminal interference with legally prescribed coin standards from other production irregularities.
Part VI — Completion of the Offence
Q27. Must an incorrectly weighted coin actually be issued?
Answer:
Section 187 is framed around a person employed in a mint who performs an act or makes a legally significant omission with the intention of causing a coin issued from that mint to have a different weight or composition.
The statutory wording does not expressly require proof that an incorrectly weighted or composed coin was ultimately issued.
The focus is on the prohibited act or omission accompanied by the required intention.
However, the prosecution must still establish the conduct and intention required by the section.
Q28. Is actual financial loss necessary to complete the offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 187 does not expressly require proof that the Government or another person suffered financial loss.
The offence addresses intentional interference with the lawful standards of coin production.
Financial loss may be relevant to the surrounding circumstances, but it is not stated as an essential ingredient.
Q29. Is the actual manufacture of a defective coin necessary?
Answer:
The statutory wording focuses on the accused’s act or legally required omission and the intention to cause a coin issued from the mint to have a different weight or composition.
It does not expressly make the successful manufacture of a defective coin an additional requirement.
Therefore, the absence of a completed defective coin does not automatically exclude liability where the statutory act or omission and intention are established.
Q30. Can an unsuccessful attempt to alter coin standards still fall within Section 187?
Answer:
The provision does not require the intended alteration to succeed as an express additional ingredient.
If a mint employee performs the prohibited act, or makes the relevant legally required omission, with the intention specified in Section 187, the provision may apply even if the intended difference is not ultimately produced.
However, merely thinking about or planning interference, without the required conduct, should not be confused with the completed statutory offence.
Part VII — Practical Illustrations
Q31. Illustration 1 — Deliberate reduction of coin weight
Answer:
A is employed in a mint.
A deliberately adjusts production machinery with the intention of causing coins issued from the mint to weigh less than the amount fixed by law.
A may be liable under Section 187 because the conduct involves an intentional act directed at producing coins of an unlawful weight.
Q32. Illustration 2 — Deliberate increase of coin weight
Answer:
B is employed in a mint.
B deliberately changes a production setting with the intention of causing coins to weigh more than the legally prescribed weight.
Section 187 may apply.
The provision is not limited to reducing coin weight.
It covers an intended difference from the weight fixed by law.
Q33. Illustration 3 — Alteration of metal composition
Answer:
C is employed in a mint.
C deliberately changes the materials used in coin production with the intention of causing coins to have a composition different from that prescribed by law.
C may be liable under Section 187 if the remaining statutory ingredients are established.
Q34. Illustration 4 — Deliberate omission of a legal duty
Answer:
D is employed in a mint.
D is legally bound to perform a particular production control.
D deliberately omits that duty with the intention of causing coins issued from the mint to have an unlawful weight.
Section 187 may apply because the provision expressly covers an omission of something the accused is legally bound to do.
Q35. Illustration 5 — Accidental machine-setting error
Answer:
E is employed in a mint.
E accidentally enters an incorrect machine setting, resulting in coins that do not conform to the prescribed weight.
There is no evidence that E intended to cause the deviation.
The accidental error alone does not establish Section 187 because the statutory intention is missing.
Q36. Illustration 6 — Deliberate interference without personal gain
Answer:
F is employed in a mint.
F deliberately interferes with coin production with the intention of causing coins to have an unlawful composition.
F does not intend to obtain money or other personal benefits.
Section 187 may still apply.
The provision does not expressly require personal financial gain.
Q37. Illustration 7 — Outsider interferes with mint machinery
Answer:
G is not employed in a mint.
G unlawfully enters the premises and interferes with coin-production machinery.
G does not satisfy the employment requirement of Section 187 merely by committing that act.
However, the conduct may attract liability under other applicable provisions, depending on the circumstances.
Q38. Illustration 8 — Intention exists but the intended defect is prevented
Answer:
H is employed in a mint.
H deliberately changes a machine setting with the intention of causing coins to have a weight different from that fixed by law.
A supervisor discovers the interference and corrects the setting before any defective coins are issued.
Section 187 may still apply because the provision focuses on the relevant act or omission accompanied by the specified intention.
The absence of an issued defective coin does not automatically prevent liability.
Part VIII — Punishment and Classification
Q39. What is the punishment under Section 187 BNS?
Answer:
Section 187 prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and liability to fine.
The imprisonment may be simple or rigorous.
The maximum term of imprisonment is seven years.
The offender is also liable to fine.
The provision does not specify a fixed fine amount in the supplied statutory wording.
Memory Formula:
SECTION 187 = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + LIABLE TO FINE
Q40. Is Section 187 cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
Section 187 is classified as a cognizable offence.
This means that the police have the powers associated with cognizable offences, subject to the applicable procedural law.
Classification: Cognizable.
Q41. Is Section 187 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
Section 187 is classified as a non-bailable offence.
However, non-bailable does not mean that bail is legally impossible.
It means that bail is not available as an automatic right merely because the offence is classified as bailable.
The grant of bail is governed by the applicable procedural law and judicial discretion.
Classification: Non-Bailable.
Q42. Which court is competent to try an offence under Section 187?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, an offence under Section 187 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Complete Classification:
COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Part IX — Important Legal Distinctions
Q43. What is the difference between Section 187 and Section 188 BNS?
Answer:
Although both provisions concern offences associated with mints and coin production, they address different conduct.
Section 187 — Person Employed in Mint Causing Coin to Be of Different Weight or Composition
Section 187 applies to a person employed in a mint who performs an act or omits a legally required act with the intention of causing coins issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
Section 188 — Unlawfully Taking Coining Instrument from Mint
Section 188 applies to whoever takes a coining tool or instrument out of a mint lawfully established in India without lawful authority.
Principal Differences
Section 187 requires employment in a mint.
Section 188 is not restricted to mint employees.
Section 187 concerns intentional deviation from lawful coin standards.
Section 188 concerns unauthorised removal of coining equipment.
Both provisions prescribe imprisonment of either description extending up to seven years and liability to fine.
Memory Formula:
187 = ALTER COIN STANDARDS
188 = REMOVE COINING INSTRUMENT
Q44. What is the difference between Section 187 and ordinary negligence?
Answer:
Section 187 requires the specific intention stated in the provision.
Ordinary negligence involves a failure to exercise the required care, without necessarily involving an intention to produce an unlawful result.
Therefore, an accidental production defect caused by carelessness does not automatically amount to an offence under Section 187.
The prosecution must establish the required intention.
Q45. What is the difference between Section 187 and counterfeiting?
Answer:
Section 187 deals with deliberate interference by a mint employee with the legally prescribed weight or composition of coins.
Counterfeiting offences concern prohibited conduct involving the imitation or manufacture of coins under the relevant statutory provisions.
Section 187 does not expressly require the accused to manufacture counterfeit coins.
Its focus is the act or legally required omission performed with the intention of causing an unlawful difference in coin weight or composition.
Q46. Why is Section 187 narrower than a general offence applying to “whoever”?
Answer:
Section 187 expressly requires the accused to be employed in a mint.
This creates a specific category of potential offenders.
The employment requirement is significant because the provision addresses misconduct by persons connected with lawful coin-production operations.
An outsider cannot automatically be treated as a principal offender under Section 187 without satisfying the relevant statutory requirements.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 187 deals with intentional interference by a mint employee with the legally prescribed weight or composition of coins.
2. Special Category of Offender
The accused must be employed in a mint.
3. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must perform an act or omit something that the accused is legally bound to do.
4. Essential Intention
The accused must intend to cause a coin issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
5. Weight
The provision covers an intended difference from the legally prescribed weight.
6. Composition
The provision also covers an intended difference from the legally prescribed composition.
7. Acts and Omissions
Both acts and legally significant omissions are covered.
8. Negligence
Negligence alone does not satisfy the express intention requirement.
9. Actual Financial Loss
Actual financial loss is not an express statutory ingredient.
10. Successful Production of a Defective Coin
The provision does not expressly require successful production or issuance of a defective coin as an additional ingredient.
11. Punishment
Imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years and liability to fine.
12. Classification
Cognizable.
Non-bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
13. IPC Equivalent
Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 244 IPC.
14. Legislative Position
According to the supplied commentary, the language of the earlier IPC provision remains unchanged.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 187 BNS.
Title: Person Employed in Mint Causing Coin to Be of Different Weight or Composition from That Fixed by Law.
IPC Equivalent: Section 244 IPC.
Protected Interest: Integrity and lawful standards of coin production.
Accused: A person employed in a mint.
Conduct: Performing an act or omitting something legally required.
Required Intention: Causing a coin issued from the mint to have a different weight or composition from that fixed by law.
Weight Deviation: Covered.
Composition Deviation: Covered.
Both Weight and Composition Required: No.
Negligence Alone Sufficient: No.
Personal Financial Gain Required: No.
Actual Financial Loss Required: No express requirement.
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description up to seven years and liability to fine.
Cognizability: Cognizable.
Bailability: Non-bailable.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 187 applies to every person who interferes with coin production.
Incorrect.
The provision expressly requires the accused to be employed in a mint.
Trap 2 — The accused must be a public servant.
Incorrect.
The statutory requirement is employment in a mint, not an express requirement of public-servant status.
Trap 3 — Section 187 applies only where coin weight is reduced.
Incorrect.
The provision covers an intended difference from the weight fixed by law.
The difference may involve an increase or decrease.
Trap 4 — Section 187 applies only to coin weight.
Incorrect.
The provision also covers composition.
Trap 5 — Both weight and composition must be altered.
Incorrect.
The statutory wording uses “or”.
An intended difference in either weight or composition may be sufficient.
Trap 6 — Every manufacturing mistake constitutes an offence.
Incorrect.
The required intention must be established.
Trap 7 — Negligence alone is sufficient.
Incorrect.
Section 187 expressly requires intention.
Trap 8 — The accused must obtain personal financial gain.
Incorrect.
Personal financial gain is not an express statutory ingredient.
Trap 9 — The Government must suffer actual financial loss.
Incorrect.
Actual financial loss is not expressly required.
Trap 10 — Section 187 covers only positive acts.
Incorrect.
The provision also covers omission of something the accused is legally bound to do.
Trap 11 — Every omission by a mint employee is punishable.
Incorrect.
Where liability is based on an omission, the omitted act must be legally required, and the statutory intention must be established.
Trap 12 — The intended alteration must succeed before Section 187 can apply.
Incorrect.
The provision focuses on the relevant act or legally required omission accompanied by the specified intention.
Trap 13 — Section 187 is bailable.
Incorrect.
Section 187 is classified as non-bailable.
Trap 14 — Section 187 is non-cognizable.
Incorrect.
Section 187 is classified as cognizable.
Trap 15 — Section 187 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 16 — The maximum imprisonment is three years.
Incorrect.
The maximum imprisonment is seven years.
Trap 17 — Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 187 IPC.
Incorrect.
Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 244 IPC.
Trap 18 — Sections 187 and 188 BNS deal with the same prohibited act.
Incorrect.
Section 187 concerns intentional interference with lawful coin standards by a mint employee.
Section 188 concerns unauthorised removal of coining tools or instruments from a lawfully established mint.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 187 — PERSON EMPLOYED IN MINT CAUSING COIN TO BE OF DIFFERENT WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION FROM THAT FIXED BY LAW
PERSON EMPLOYED IN MINT
- ●
ACT OR LEGALLY REQUIRED OMISSION
- ●
INTENTION TO CAUSE DIFFERENT WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION
- ●
DIFFERENCE FROM STANDARD FIXED BY LAW
=
SECTION 187 BNS
PUNISHMENT = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + LIABLE TO FINE
CLASSIFICATION = COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT = SECTION 244 IPC
DISTINCTION FROM SECTION 188
187 = INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH COIN WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION.
188 = UNAUTHORISED REMOVAL OF COINING INSTRUMENT.
Key Takeaway
Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalises deliberate interference by a person employed in a mint with the legally prescribed weight or composition of coins.
The provision applies where the employee performs an act or omits something that the employee is legally bound to do, with the intention of causing coins issued from the mint to have a weight or composition different from that fixed by law.
The offence is distinguished from ordinary manufacturing negligence by its express requirement of intention.
It does not expressly require proof of personal financial gain, actual financial loss or successful issuance of a defective coin.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years and liability to fine.
The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 187 BNS corresponds to Section 244 IPC, and the statutory language has been retained without substantive change.
Final Memory Line:
187 = MINT EMPLOYEE + INTENTIONAL ACT OR LEGALLY REQUIRED OMISSION + DIFFERENT COIN WEIGHT OR COMPOSITION = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + FINE.
