- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 188 - Unlawfully Taking Coining Instrument from Mint
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 188 - Unlawfully Taking Coining Instrument from Mint
Introduction
Section 188 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the unlawful removal of coining tools or instruments from a mint lawfully established in India.
The provision seeks to protect the security and integrity of India’s coinage system by preventing the unauthorised removal of specialised equipment used in the manufacture of coins.
Coining instruments are important because they are used in the production of coins. Their unauthorised removal may create opportunities for misuse, including activities connected with counterfeiting.
Section 188 therefore criminalises the unauthorised removal itself, without requiring proof that the instrument was subsequently used to manufacture counterfeit coins.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 188 BNS corresponds to Section 245 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The language of the earlier provision has been retained without substantive alteration.
Central Memory Formula
LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED MINT + COINING TOOL OR INSTRUMENT + REMOVAL WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY = SECTION 188 BNS
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 188
Q1. What does Section 188 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 188 provides that whoever, without lawful authority, takes any coining tool or instrument out of a mint lawfully established in India shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
The provision focuses on the unauthorised removal of coining equipment from a legally established mint.
The prosecution is not required to establish that the instrument was subsequently used for counterfeiting.
The prohibited act is the taking of the instrument out of the mint without lawful authority.
Memory Formula:
UNAUTHORISED REMOVAL + COINING INSTRUMENT + LAWFUL MINT = SECTION 188
Q2. What is the principal object of Section 188?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 188 is to protect the security, integrity and lawful operation of mints established in India.
The manufacture of coins involves specialised equipment that must remain subject to proper control and supervision.
Unauthorised removal of such equipment may undermine the security of coin production and create opportunities for its misuse.
Section 188 therefore serves a preventive purpose by criminalising the unauthorised removal of coining instruments before any subsequent misuse occurs.
Q3. Which provision of the Indian Penal Code corresponds to Section 188 BNS?
Answer:
Section 188 BNS corresponds to Section 245 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:
188 BNS = 245 IPC
Q4. Has Section 188 introduced a new criminal offence?
Answer:
No.
Section 188 substantially reproduces the offence previously contained in Section 245 IPC.
The prohibited conduct remains the unauthorised removal of coining tools or instruments from a lawfully established mint in India.
The principal legislative change is the relocation and renumbering of the provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 188
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 188?
Answer:
The following four elements must be established.
First — A lawfully established mint
There must be a mint lawfully established in India.
Second — A coining tool or instrument
The article concerned must qualify as a coining tool or instrument.
Third — Removal from the mint
The accused must have taken the instrument out of the mint.
Fourth — Absence of lawful authority
The removal must have occurred without lawful authority.
These requirements must be considered together.
Memory Formula:
MINT + COINING INSTRUMENT + TAKING OUT + NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY = SECTION 188
Q6. Is the existence of a lawfully established mint essential?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 188 expressly refers to a mint lawfully established in India.
The prosecution must therefore establish that the instrument was removed from an establishment satisfying this statutory description.
The provision cannot automatically be applied to every place where metal objects or coin-like articles are manufactured.
The legal status of the mint is an essential requirement.
Q7. What is meant by a mint?
Answer:
A mint is an establishment where coins are manufactured or produced under lawful authority.
Such an establishment may contain machinery, dies, moulds and other specialised equipment used in the coin-production process.
For Section 188, the important requirement is that the mint must be lawfully established in India.
Q8. What is meant by a coining tool or instrument?
Answer:
A coining tool or instrument refers to equipment used in, or specifically connected with, the production of coins.
Depending on its function, it may include specialised dies, punches, moulds or other equipment associated with coin manufacture.
However, not every object located within a mint automatically qualifies as a coining instrument.
The prosecution must establish that the particular article falls within the statutory description.
Example:
A specialised die used to imprint designs on coins may qualify as a coining instrument.
An ordinary office chair located within the mint would not become a coining instrument merely because it belongs to the establishment.
Q9. Must the coining instrument be capable of producing counterfeit coins?
Answer:
Section 188 does not expressly require proof that the instrument is capable of independently producing counterfeit coins.
The relevant question is whether the article qualifies as a coining tool or instrument and whether it was removed from a lawfully established mint without lawful authority.
The offence is therefore not dependent upon proving that the instrument was intended for counterfeiting.
Q10. What does the expression “takes out of any mint” mean?
Answer:
The expression refers to removing a coining tool or instrument from the mint.
The statutory language focuses on taking the instrument out of the establishment.
Merely moving an instrument between authorised work areas within the same mint would not, by itself, establish the particular act of taking it out of the mint.
The required removal must be proved.
Q11. Is actual removal necessary to complete the offence?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 188 uses the expression “takes out”.
The completed offence therefore requires proof that the instrument was taken out of the mint without lawful authority.
Merely planning or discussing the removal of an instrument does not, by itself, constitute the completed offence under Section 188.
Any question concerning an attempt would need to be considered separately under the applicable legal provisions.
Q12. What does “without lawful authority” mean?
Answer:
The expression means that the accused lacked the legal authority required to remove the coining instrument from the mint.
It distinguishes authorised removal from prohibited removal.
For example, where an instrument is removed under valid authorisation for official repair or maintenance, the requirement of absence of lawful authority is not satisfied.
However, a person who removes the instrument without the necessary authority may attract Section 188.
Memory Formula:
AUTHORISED REMOVAL = NO OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 188 ON THAT BASIS
UNAUTHORISED REMOVAL = POSSIBLE LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 188
Part III — Persons Who May Commit the Offence
Q13. Can Section 188 be committed only by an employee of a mint?
Answer:
No.
Section 188 begins with the expression “Whoever”.
The provision does not restrict liability to employees, public servants or persons holding a particular official position.
Any person who satisfies the statutory ingredients may be liable.
The accused may be an employee, contractor, visitor or outsider.
The decisive question is whether the accused took a coining tool or instrument out of the mint without lawful authority.
Q14. Can a mint employee be guilty under Section 188?
Answer:
Yes.
Employment at a mint does not automatically confer unrestricted authority to remove coining equipment.
An employee may be authorised to operate or handle an instrument within the mint without being authorised to remove it from the premises.
Example:
A technician is permitted to operate a coining machine during working hours.
The technician subsequently removes a specialised coining die from the mint without the required authority.
Section 188 may apply if the remaining statutory ingredients are established.
Q15. Can an outsider commit an offence under Section 188?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision applies to any person who commits the prohibited act.
An outsider who enters a lawfully established mint and removes a coining instrument without lawful authority may be liable under Section 188.
The law does not require the accused to have an employment relationship with the mint.
Part IV — Nature and Scope of the Offence
Q16. Is it necessary to prove that the accused manufactured counterfeit coins?
Answer:
No.
Section 188 does not expressly require the manufacture of counterfeit coins.
The prohibited conduct is the unauthorised removal of a coining tool or instrument from a lawfully established mint.
Consequently, the offence may be complete even if the removed instrument is never subsequently used.
Exam Point:
REMOVAL IS THE PROHIBITED ACT — COUNTERFEITING IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT.
Q17. Is it necessary to prove an intention to counterfeit coins?
Answer:
Section 188 does not expressly prescribe an intention to counterfeit coins as an ingredient.
The statutory language focuses on taking the instrument out of the mint without lawful authority.
Therefore, a separate intention to manufacture counterfeit coins should not be added as an indispensable statutory requirement.
Any question concerning the accused’s state of mind must be considered in accordance with the applicable principles of criminal liability and the evidence.
Q18. Is it necessary to prove that the Government suffered financial loss?
Answer:
No.
Section 188 does not expressly require proof of financial loss.
The offence concerns the unauthorised removal of protected coining equipment.
Therefore, the prosecution is not required to establish that the Government suffered a particular monetary loss before the offence can be considered complete.
Q19. Is subsequent misuse of the instrument necessary?
Answer:
No.
The provision does not expressly require the removed instrument to be used after removal.
For example, an accused may unlawfully remove a coining die and keep it unused in a storage room.
The absence of subsequent misuse does not automatically exclude liability under Section 188.
Q20. Why can Section 188 be described as a preventive provision?
Answer:
Section 188 serves a preventive purpose because it penalises the unauthorised removal of important coining equipment before the equipment is misused.
Coining instruments may have special significance for the security of the monetary system.
By criminalising unauthorised removal, the law provides protection without requiring proof of a completed counterfeiting operation.
Part V — Practical Illustrations
Q21. Illustration 1 — Employee removes a coining die without permission
Answer:
A works at a mint lawfully established in India.
A has permission to use a coining die during official working hours.
However, A removes the die from the mint without lawful authority.
A may be liable under Section 188 because the coining instrument has been taken out of the mint without the required authority.
Q22. Illustration 2 — Authorised removal for maintenance
Answer:
B is a technician employed at a mint.
B receives valid authorisation to take a coining instrument to an approved repair facility.
B removes the instrument in accordance with that authorisation.
Section 188 would not ordinarily apply because the removal was made under lawful authority.
Q23. Illustration 3 — Visitor removes a coining instrument
Answer:
C visits a lawfully established mint.
During the visit, C removes a specialised coining instrument from the premises without lawful authority.
C may be liable under Section 188.
The fact that C is not a mint employee does not prevent the provision from applying.
Q24. Illustration 4 — Instrument removed but never used
Answer:
D unlawfully removes a coining die from a mint.
D subsequently keeps the instrument in a storage room and never uses it to manufacture coins.
The absence of subsequent use does not automatically exclude Section 188.
The completed unauthorised removal remains the relevant conduct.
Q25. Illustration 5 — Ordinary office equipment removed
Answer:
E removes an ordinary office chair from a mint without permission.
Although the conduct may raise questions under other legal provisions, an ordinary office chair is not a coining tool or instrument.
Section 188 would therefore not apply merely because the chair was removed from a mint.
The nature of the removed object is essential.
Q26. Illustration 6 — Movement within the mint
Answer:
F moves a coining instrument from one production room to another within the same mint.
The instrument is not taken out of the mint.
On these facts alone, the specific removal requirement of Section 188 is not established.
Any separate breach of official rules would need to be considered independently.
Part VI — Punishment and Classification
Q27. What is the punishment under Section 188 BNS?
Answer:
Section 188 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 provision also makes the offender liable to fine.
No fixed amount of fine is specified in the supplied statutory wording.
Memory Formula:
SECTION 188 = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + LIABLE TO FINE
Q28. Is Section 188 a cognizable or non-cognizable offence?
Answer:
Section 188 is a cognizable offence.
This means that the police possess the powers associated with cognizable offences, subject to the applicable procedural law.
Classification: Cognizable.
Q29. Is Section 188 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
Section 188 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 of the classification of the offence.
The grant of bail is governed by the applicable legal provisions and judicial discretion.
Classification: Non-Bailable.
Q30. Which court is competent to try an offence under Section 188?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, an offence under Section 188 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Complete Classification:
COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Part VII — Important Legal Distinctions
Q31. What is the difference between unlawfully removing a coining instrument and counterfeiting coins?
Answer:
The two forms of conduct are connected with coinage security but are legally distinct.
Unlawfully Removing a Coining Instrument — Section 188
The prohibited conduct is taking a coining tool or instrument out of a lawfully established mint without lawful authority.
Counterfeiting Coins
Counterfeiting concerns the prohibited manufacture or imitation of coins under the relevant statutory provisions.
Section 188 does not require proof that counterfeit coins were manufactured.
Memory Formula:
188 = UNAUTHORISED REMOVAL OF COINING EQUIPMENT
COUNTERFEITING = PROHIBITED IMITATION OR MANUFACTURE OF COINS
Q32. What is the difference between Section 188 and ordinary theft?
Answer:
Section 188 is a specific provision dealing with the unauthorised removal of coining tools or instruments from a lawfully established mint.
Ordinary theft under Section 303 BNS has its own statutory requirements, including dishonest taking of movable property out of another person’s possession without consent and movement of the property for that purpose.
Section 188 does not reproduce all the ingredients of theft.
Therefore, the two provisions should not be treated as identical.
Depending on the facts, the same conduct may raise questions under more than one statutory provision, but each offence must be established according to its own requirements.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 188 criminalises the unauthorised removal of coining tools or instruments from a mint lawfully established in India.
2. Essential Ingredients
A lawfully established mint.
A coining tool or instrument.
Taking the instrument out of the mint.
Absence of lawful authority.
3. Persons Who May Commit the Offence
Any person may commit the offence.
The section is not restricted to mint employees or public servants.
4. Actual Counterfeiting
The manufacture of counterfeit coins is not an essential statutory ingredient.
5. Subsequent Misuse
Subsequent use of the instrument is not expressly required.
6. Financial Loss
Actual financial loss is not expressly required.
7. Punishment
Imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years and liability to fine.
8. Classification
Cognizable.
Non-bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
9. IPC Equivalent
Section 188 BNS corresponds to Section 245 IPC.
10. Legislative Position
According to the supplied commentary, the statutory language remains unchanged.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 188 BNS.
Title: Unlawfully Taking Coining Instrument from Mint.
IPC Equivalent: Section 245 IPC.
Protected Interest: Security and integrity of lawful coin production.
Place: A mint lawfully established in India.
Object: A coining tool or instrument.
Prohibited Act: Taking the instrument out of the mint without lawful authority.
Actual Counterfeiting Required: No.
Subsequent Misuse 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 188 applies to the removal of any object from a mint.
Incorrect.
The removed object must qualify as a coining tool or instrument.
Trap 2 — The accused must be an employee of the mint.
Incorrect.
The provision applies to whoever commits the prohibited act.
Trap 3 — Counterfeit coins must actually be manufactured.
Incorrect.
The offence concerns unauthorised removal of coining equipment.
Trap 4 — The removed instrument must subsequently be used.
Incorrect.
Subsequent use is not expressly required.
Trap 5 — The Government must suffer financial loss.
Incorrect.
Financial loss is not an express statutory ingredient.
Trap 6 — Any movement of an instrument within a mint is sufficient.
Incorrect.
The provision refers to taking the instrument out of the mint.
Trap 7 — Lawfully authorised removal constitutes the offence.
Incorrect.
The absence of lawful authority is an essential ingredient.
Trap 8 — Section 188 is a bailable offence.
Incorrect.
Section 188 is classified as non-bailable.
Trap 9 — Section 188 is non-cognizable.
Incorrect.
Section 188 is classified as cognizable.
Trap 10 — Section 188 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 11 — The maximum imprisonment is three years.
Incorrect.
The maximum imprisonment is seven years.
Trap 12 — Section 188 BNS corresponds to Section 188 IPC.
Incorrect.
Section 188 BNS corresponds to Section 245 IPC.
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 188 — UNLAWFULLY TAKING COINING INSTRUMENT FROM MINT
LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED MINT
- ●
COINING TOOL OR INSTRUMENT
- ●
TAKING OUT OF THE MINT
- ●
WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY
=
SECTION 188 BNS
PUNISHMENT = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + LIABLE TO FINE
CLASSIFICATION = COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT = SECTION 245 IPC
Key Takeaway
Section 188 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 protects the security of the coinage system by criminalising the unauthorised removal of coining tools or instruments from a mint lawfully established in India.
The provision does not require proof that the accused manufactured counterfeit coins, subsequently used the instrument or caused financial loss.
The essential prohibited act is taking the relevant coining equipment out of the mint without lawful authority.
The offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years and liability to fine.
It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Final Memory Line:
188 = COINING INSTRUMENT + LAWFUL MINT + UNAUTHORISED REMOVAL = UP TO SEVEN YEARS + FINE.
