Section 242 punishes a person who falsely personates another and, in that assumed character, does one of the acts the section lists in a suit or criminal prosecution, such as making an admission or statement, causing process to be issued, or becoming bail or security. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and compared word by word with the bare text of both Acts. Section 242 is marked Exact correspondence — it descends from a single section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the concordance shows no change tag against it:
| BNS 242 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 242 | False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution | S.205 “False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison of IPC Section 205 with BNS Section 242 (run by program, and checked against the printed page of each Act) finds no difference: the words, the punctuation and the punishment (imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both) are identical, and the marginal heading is worded the same in both Acts. This page therefore classes Section 242 as Exact.
Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 242 is one sentence with two parts. First, the person “falsely personates another”. Second, “in such assumed character”, he does one of the acts the section lists. Both parts must be present: pretending to be another person is not by itself the offence on the words of this section, and one of the listed acts done in the person’s own character is not the offence either.
The first part is that the person “falsely personates another”. The Sanhita does not define “personates” in Section 2. Section 319(1) describes cheating by personation as cheating by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or by representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is, and the Explanation to Section 319 says the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. Those words belong to Section 319 and are not part of Section 242; this page does not say that they apply to Section 242, and it does not state a rule on whether the person personated must exist.
The second part lists the acts, joined by “or”: making any admission or statement; the act named immediately after that, a confession of the kind the section names (it is set out in the Statutory Text above, and the Sanhita does not define it in Section 2, so this page goes no further than the words of the section); causing any process to be issued; becoming bail or security; and doing any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution. In the sentence the words “in any suit or criminal prosecution” follow “any other act” directly, with no comma between them, while a comma separates the earlier acts from “or does any other act”. The text does not say whether those closing words also govern the earlier acts, and this page does not state a rule about it. The marginal heading (“False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution”) is a heading, not part of the sentence.
The Sanhita does not define “admission”, “statement”, “process”, “suit” or “criminal prosecution” in Section 2. BNSS Section 2(1)(b) defines “bail” and BNSS Section 2(1)(d) defines “bail bond” as an undertaking for release with surety, and Section 2(39) of the Sanhita gives words defined in the BNSS the meanings assigned there; but the Sanhita does not itself define the phrase “becomes bail or security”, and in ordinary usage a person who does so is one who stands surety for another.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple, Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both. The section states no amount for the fine; Section 8(1) provides that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. BNSS Section 2(1)(o) defines a non-cognizable offence as one for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, and BNSS Section 174(2) provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Because the offence is bailable, BNSS Section 478(1) applies: a person accused of a bailable offence who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”. The section appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
Section 319 (Cheating by personation) is a different offence. It applies where a person cheats by personation, and Section 319(2) prescribes imprisonment of either description for up to five years, or fine, or both. Section 242 uses no word of cheating and prescribes up to three years, or fine, or both.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 242 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
In a bail application for a person arrested under the Bombay Prohibition Act, the prosecution said that one accused identified the surety and attested the application, and another wrote the application and the affidavit; the Magistrate granted bail. After the case was transferred to another Magistrate, notice went to the surety. The person named as surety appeared and said he had never stood surety, made an affidavit or signed any papers. Another accused, named as the “real” surety, admitted that he had put his thumb mark on the bail application and affidavit at the instance of the first accused, without knowing their contents. The transferee Magistrate made a complaint, including for the offence of false personation in a judicial proceeding (old Section 205, the predecessor of this Section). The High Court held that the transferee Magistrate was not competent to do so, and the State appealed.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It held that bail proceedings are judicial proceedings before a court even while the offence is still under police investigation, as the sentence quoted above says, and that the bail proceedings and the later proceedings before the transferee Magistrate were stages of the same judicial process. So the false personation was committed in or in relation to proceedings in the transferee Magistrate’s court, and that Magistrate could act on it.
Currency check: decided September 1980; no adverse subsequent history found.
The section requires that, in the assumed character, the person does one of the acts it lists: makes any admission or statement; does the act named immediately after that, the confession set out in the Statutory Text; causes any process to be issued; becomes bail or security; or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution. Falsely personating another is the first part of the offence, and one of those acts is the second part.
The words of Section 242 are “falsely personates another”, and the section carries no Explanation on the point. The Explanation to Section 319 says that cheating by personation is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person, but that Explanation belongs to Section 319. This page does not state a rule for Section 242.
Section 319 applies where a person cheats by personation and prescribes imprisonment of up to five years, or fine, or both. Section 242 has no word of cheating; it requires false personation followed, in the assumed character, by one of the listed acts in a suit or criminal prosecution, and prescribes imprisonment of up to three years, or fine, or both.
The BNSS First Schedule lists it as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and BNSS Section 174(2) says no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Being bailable, it is governed by BNSS Section 478(1): a person accused of it who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”.
No difference was found in the words or punctuation of the section, or in its punishment, when the two texts were compared word by word. The marginal heading is also worded the same in both Acts.