Section 256 punishes a public servant who, being charged with preparing a record or other writing, frames it in a manner he knows to be incorrect, intending (or knowing it to be likely) to cause loss or injury to the public or to any person, to save a person from legal punishment, or to save property from forfeiture or other charge. 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 256 is marked Exact correspondence — it maps to one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the two texts carry the same words:
| BNS 256 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 256 | Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture | S.218 “Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison of BNS 256 with IPC 218, run by program on the two texts (punctuation included) and checked against the printed pages of both Acts, found no difference in wording or punctuation. The only points at which the two texts differ are the section number (218 in the IPC, 256 in the BNS) and the marginal heading, which is the same in both. The punishment, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, is the same in both Acts.
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, 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 256 is a single sentence with four working parts. First, the accused must be a public servant who is, “as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing”. Second, he must frame “that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect”. Third, he must act with one of three stated purposes, each expressed as an intention or as knowledge that a result is likely: “with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person”; or “with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment”; or “with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law”. Fourth, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both.
“Public servant” is defined in Section 2(28). The words “record” and “writing” are not separately defined in Section 2; Section 2(8) defines “document” (which “includes electronic and digital record”), and the section itself uses the words “record or other writing”. This page does not say how far the two sets of words overlap. “Injury” is defined in Section 2(14) as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property; “loss”, on its own, is not defined in Section 2 (only “wrongful loss”, in Section 2(37), is). The section requires that he “knows” the record or writing to be incorrect; it does not use the words “or believes”.
The three purposes are alternatives joined by “or”, and each carries its own two forms of mental element (intent, or knowledge of likelihood). The first names loss or injury “to the public or to any person”. The second concerns saving a person from legal punishment. The third concerns saving property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law.
Section 201 is the neighbouring provision on a public servant who frames an incorrect document. It speaks of a public servant charged with the preparation or translation of any “document or electronic record”, who “frames, prepares or translates” it in a manner which he “knows or believes” to be incorrect, “intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person”, and provides imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both, the same punishment as Section 256. Where the incorrect item is both a “document” and a “record or other writing” and the intention is to cause injury to a person, the words of the two sections may overlap; the sections do not say which is to apply then, and this page does not state a rule on that point. Section 255 concerns disobedience of a direction of law rather than the framing of an incorrect record.
The section states no sum for the fine, so Section 8(1) applies: where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class, and it is not compoundable under BNSS Section 359. (Section 255, by contrast, is recorded as non-cognizable and triable by any Magistrate.)
These judgment(s) relate to Section 256 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A man named Chauhan went on a shoot in which two persons were shot dead. To create evidence in his favour, a Head Constable made a false entry in the police General Diary, showing that Chauhan had deposited his gun at the police station the previous day. Chauhan and others were acquitted, but the Head Constable was convicted of framing an incorrect record under Section 218 of the old Penal Code and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court dismissed his appeal, and he appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Chauhan’s acquittal meant his own conviction could not stand, and that the prosecution was out of time under the Police Act.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal of the other person did not affect the finding that the false entry was made with intent to save him from punishment, and that the Police Act’s time limit did not apply to a prosecution under the Penal Code. Old Section 218, which the judgment construes, now appears as this Section 256 of the Sanhita: a public servant charged with preparing a record or writing who frames it incorrectly with intent to save a person from legal punishment. The passage above shows how the Court read that element.
Only a public servant who is, as such public servant, charged with the preparation of a record or other writing. “Public servant” is defined in Section 2(28) of the Sanhita. A person who is not a public servant, or a public servant who is not charged with preparing the record or writing in question, is not within the words of the section.
The section uses the words “in a manner which he knows to be incorrect”. It does not use the word “false”. What must be present is the public servant’s knowledge that the record or writing is being framed incorrectly, together with one of the three stated purposes.
First, causing (or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause) loss or injury to the public or to any person. Second, saving (or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save) any person from legal punishment. Third, saving (or knowing that he is likely thereby to save) any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law. They are alternatives.
Section 201 speaks of a document or electronic record, of a public servant charged with its preparation or translation, of framing, preparing or translating it in a manner he knows or believes to be incorrect, and of an intention to cause injury to any person. Section 256 speaks of a record or other writing, of framing it in a manner he knows to be incorrect, and of three alternative purposes. The two sections carry the same punishment: imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.
Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is cognizable and bailable and is triable by a Magistrate of the first class. “Cognizable” means, under BNSS Section 2(1)(g), that a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule, arrest without warrant. For a bailable offence, BNSS Section 478(1) provides that a person other than one accused of a non-bailable offence, who is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared to give bail, “shall be released on bail”. The offence is not listed in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.