Section 268 punishes a person who, by personation or otherwise, intentionally causes himself, or knowingly allows himself, to be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor in a case where he knows he is not entitled by law to be so, and also a person who, knowing that he has been returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, voluntarily serves as an assessor. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both. It descends from IPC Section 229, which also covered a juryman; the BNS text speaks only of an assessor.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and compared word by word, by a systematic text comparison, with the bare text of both Acts. This page marks Section 268 as Substantively changed — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the words of the two sections differ in who is covered. (The concordance itself carries no “Change” tag for this row; the basis for the label used here is the comparison of the two texts set out below.)
| BNS 268 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 268 | Personation of assessor | S.229 “Personation of a juror or assessor” | Substantively changed |
The comparison of IPC Section 229 with BNS Section 268 found these differences in the text of the section. (i) The IPC provision covers a person returned, empanelled or sworn “as a juryman or assessor”; BNS 268 says “as an assessor”, so the reference to a juryman is not carried into the BNS text. (ii) At the end, IPC 229 says “shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor”; BNS 268 says “shall voluntarily serve as such assessor”, so the words “on such jury or” are not carried over. (iii) The heading: IPC 229 reads “Personation of a juror or assessor”, the BNS marginal heading reads “Personation of assessor”, and the concordance and the BNSS First Schedule print it as “Personation of an assessor”. The rest of the section (“by personation or otherwise”, the knowledge requirements, and the punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both) is worded the same way in both Acts. Differences (i) and (ii) change the words that decide who is covered, which is why this page uses the label Substantively changed.
Whoever, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve as such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two 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 268 has two parts, joined by “or”. The first part applies to a person who, “by personation or otherwise”, intentionally causes, or knowingly suffers himself, to be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor “in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn”. The first part can therefore be committed actively (intentionally causing the result; the words “by personation or otherwise” show that pretending to be someone else is one way of doing so but not the only way) or passively (knowingly suffering himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn); in both cases the section requires that he knows he is not entitled by law. The second part applies to a person who, “knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law”, then voluntarily serves as such assessor. This second part does not mention personation or any wrongdoing in how the person came to be returned, empanelled or sworn; what it adds is knowledge that the return, empanelment or swearing was contrary to law, followed by voluntary service.
The Sanhita does not define “assessor”, “personation”, “returned”, “empanelled” or “sworn” in Section 2, and it does not define “intentionally” or “knowingly” there either, so these words carry their ordinary meaning. What Section 2(28)(d) does say is that every assessor or member of a panchayat assisting a Court or public servant is a public servant. The section speaks of what a person is “entitled by law” to; the rules about who may be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor lie outside this section, and this page does not list them. “Voluntarily” is defined in Section 2(33): a person causes an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. The three stages, “returned, empanelled or sworn”, are listed as alternatives.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous, under Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both. The section states no maximum 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. The BNSS First Schedule lists the offence as non-cognizable (under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and under BNSS Section 174(2) no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try it or commit it for trial), bailable (BNSS Section 478 provides that a person accused of a bailable offence who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”), triable by a Magistrate of the first class, and not compoundable, since it appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
Other sections of the Sanhita deal with personation in different settings and with their own words: Section 242 (falsely personating another and, in the assumed character, doing an act in a suit or criminal prosecution), Section 204 (pretending to hold an office as a public servant) and Section 319 (cheating by personation). Section 268 differs in that personation is only one way of bringing it about (“by personation or otherwise”), the subject is being returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor, and the second part is framed around knowledge that the return, empanelment or swearing was contrary to law followed by voluntary service, without requiring in its words that the person brought that situation about.
No. The first part of the section says “by personation or otherwise”, so personation is one way of intentionally causing oneself to be returned, empanelled or sworn but not the only way, and the second part (knowing oneself to have been returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, and voluntarily serving) does not mention personation at all.
The Sanhita does not define “assessor” in Section 2. Section 2(28)(d) says that every assessor or member of a panchayat assisting a Court or public servant is a public servant. Beyond that, the section refers to what a person is “entitled by law” to, and the rules about who may be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor are not set out in Section 268.
Both parts of the section are framed around knowledge. The first part requires that he “knows that he is not entitled by law”, and the second part requires that he is “knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law”. A person who neither knew nor came to know of the position does not fit the words of either part.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is a non-cognizable and bailable offence, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Bail can therefore be claimed as a matter of right (BNSS Section 478, under which a person accused of a bailable offence who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”). It is not one of the offences listed in the compounding tables of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.
The IPC provision covered a person returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor, and a person who voluntarily served on such jury or as such assessor. Section 268 speaks only of an assessor. The punishment is the same: imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both.