Section 319 defines cheating by personation — cheating by pretending to be some other person, by knowingly substituting one person for another, or by representing that oneself or another person is someone other than who that person really is — and fixes the punishment: imprisonment of up to five years, or fine, or both. The Sanhita puts the definition and the punishment in one section, where the Indian Penal Code used two (Sections 416 and 419), and raises the maximum from three years to five.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. In the concordance, sub-section (1) of Section 319 stands against IPC Section 416 and sub-section (2) against IPC Section 419, so the section brings two old provisions into one, and the punishment in sub-section (2) differs from the old one. Because a real change to the punishment accompanies the merger, Lexovia classes the section as Substantively changed:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 319 | S.416 “Cheating by personation” (for sub-section (1)) S.419 “Punishment for cheating by personation” (for sub-section (2)) | Substantively changed |
Two provisions of the Indian Penal Code became one section of the Sanhita: IPC Section 416 (the definition, with its Explanation and two illustrations) became sub-section (1), and IPC Section 419 (the punishment) became sub-section (2). Two facts therefore go together: structurally, two IPC sections are merged (2→1) into one section; substantively, the maximum term in sub-section (2) is raised from three years to five. A word-by-word comparison of the two texts shows the following. (1) Sub-section (1) against IPC Section 416. The definition, the Explanation and both illustrations read the same, word for word. The only differences are in punctuation: the IPC places the words “cheat by personation” inside quotation marks and the BNS does not; the IPC has a comma after “A cheats” in illustration (a) (“A cheats, by pretending…”) which the BNS omits; and the dash after the word “Explanation” and the full stop after the word “Illustrations” are printed differently (the IPC prints “Explanation.-” and “Illustrations” with no full stop; the BNS prints “Explanation.—” and “Illustrations.”). The phrase “one person for or another” is printed in exactly this form in both Acts. (2) Sub-section (2) against IPC Section 419. The only difference is the maximum term: IPC Section 419 provided imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both; BNS Section 319(2) provides imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or fine, or both. Section 319 carries no “Change” marker in the concordance; the category shown on this page is Lexovia’s own classification from comparing the two statutory texts. One wording point: the concordance prints the title of IPC Section 419 as “Punishment of cheating by personation”, whereas the Indian Penal Code’s own text reads “Punishment for cheating by personation”; the table above uses the Code’s own wording.
(1) A person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Explanation.—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
Illustrations.
(a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by personation.
(b) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.
(2) Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five 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.
Sub-section (1) describes one particular way of committing cheating: cheating by personation, where the deception is about who someone is. It does not stand alone. The sub-section says that a person cheats by personation “if he cheats” in one of three ways, so the elements of cheating itself must be present as well. The place where the Sanhita says when a person “is said to cheat” is Section 318(1): deceiving a person and thereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, where the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The word “cheat” is not separately defined in Section 2 (Definitions). Section 319(1) therefore adds the manner of the deception; a person who merely pretends to be someone else, without cheating anyone, is not within the words of this sub-section.
The three modes are alternatives, joined by “or”. The first is pretending to be some other person: the accused holds himself out as a person other than who he is. The second is knowingly substituting one person for another: the accused puts one person in the place of another, and the sub-section attaches the word “knowingly” to this mode. (Both the Indian Penal Code and the Sanhita print this phrase as “one person for or another”; the plain sense is one person put in place of another.) The third is representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Here the false representation may be about the accused himself or about a third person, so a person who falsely represents someone else’s identity to the victim is within the words, and not only a person impersonating another in his own right. Section 2(26) defines “person” to include any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not; the sub-section uses the word “person” throughout, while its own Explanation speaks of the “individual personated”.
The sub-section carries its own Explanation and two illustrations, quoted in full above. The Explanation says the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person, so it does not matter that the identity the accused claimed does not belong to anyone who exists. Illustration (a) deals with pretending to be a real person (a rich banker of the same name) and illustration (b) with pretending to be a person who is deceased; each ends with the statement that the accused cheats by personation. Those built-in illustrations belong to the statute; the example below is Lexovia’s own.
Two points of comparison help avoid confusion. First, the definition carries no punishment of its own; the punishment is in sub-section (2). Section 318 punishes ordinary cheating separately — up to three years under Section 318(2), up to five years under Section 318(3) (cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound by law or by legal contract to protect) and up to seven years and fine under Section 318(4) (cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property, or the making, altering or destroying of a valuable security or anything signed or sealed that can be converted into one). Where the same facts — for example, delivery of property induced by pretending to be another person — can be described by more than one of these provisions, the wording of Section 319 does not itself say how they are to be reconciled, and a reader with an actual matter should take advice on which provision applies. Second, pretending to be someone else in order to cheat is not the same thing as making a false document in someone else’s name; the offences relating to documents (for example Sections 335 and 336, in Chapter XVIII) are separate provisions and are not part of Section 319.
Sub-section (2) fixes the punishment for the offence defined in sub-section (1): imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or fine, or both. “Either description” refers to the two kinds of imprisonment listed in Section 4(c) of the Sanhita — rigorous (with hard labour) and simple. The words “or with fine, or with both” mean that the court may impose imprisonment alone, fine alone, or both together. The sub-section fixes no minimum term and no sum for the fine; under Section 8(1), where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of the fine is unlimited, but it shall not be excessive. There is a single ceiling for all three modes of personation in sub-section (1); the sub-section does not grade them.
This is the point at which the Sanhita changes the earlier law. IPC Section 419, the corresponding provision, allowed imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years; sub-section (2) raises the maximum term to five years, and no other word of the punishment clause differs. Placed beside the neighbouring provisions of Section 318, the five-year maximum is the same as the maximum in Section 318(3), higher than the three-year maximum in Section 318(2) (ordinary cheating), and lower than the seven-year maximum, with fine, in Section 318(4).
On classification, the BNSS First Schedule lists Section 319(2) as cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. “Cognizable offence” is defined in BNSS Section 2(1)(g) as an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant, and “bailable offence” in Section 2(1)(c) as one shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or made bailable by any other law for the time being in force. It is worth noticing the contrast with ordinary cheating: the same Schedule lists Section 318(2) as non-cognizable, while Section 319(2) is listed as cognizable. Under BNSS Section 359(1) the offence is compoundable by the person cheated, without the permission of the Court. Section 359 also sets further conditions on compounding (for example, sub-sections (5) and (7)), so it should be read in full before it is relied on in any real case.
Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to five years, or fine, or both. The section sets no minimum term. Where a section does not fix a sum for the fine, Section 8(1) says the amount is unlimited but shall not be excessive.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Under BNSS Section 359(1) it is compoundable by the person cheated without the permission of the Court, subject to the other conditions of Section 359.
No. The definition says a person cheats by personation “if he cheats” by pretending, substituting or representing. The pretence must be the way in which a cheating is carried out. The general definition of cheating is in Section 318(1).
No. The Explanation to sub-section (1) says the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
The definition, its Explanation and illustrations read the same as IPC Section 416 apart from punctuation. The punishment has changed: IPC Section 419 allowed up to three years, and Section 319(2) allows up to five years. Two IPC sections are now one BNS section.
Section 318 defines cheating generally. Section 319 is the form of cheating in which the deception is about identity, and it has its own punishment: up to five years, against up to three years for ordinary cheating in Section 318(2). The First Schedule also lists Section 319(2) as cognizable, while Section 318(2) is listed as non-cognizable.