Section Overview
Section Number
28
Section Title
Counterfeit
Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Status
Active
Applicability
Applicable throughout India wherever the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is in force.
BNS Section 28 is an interpretative provision that explains the legal meaning of the word "Counterfeit." The concept is important because many criminal offences involve the creation of fake items designed to resemble genuine ones.
Counterfeiting may relate to:
-
Currency notes
-
Official seals
-
Government documents
-
Educational certificates
-
Identity cards
-
Electronic records
-
Trademarks
-
Valuable securities
-
Digital assets
The provision establishes the legal test for determining when an imitation becomes a counterfeit item under criminal law.
BNS Section 28 substantially corresponds to Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and continues the same legal principle.
Section Explanation
Simple Explanation (Plain English / Hinglish)
BNS Section 28 batata hai ki "Counterfeit" ka kya matlab hota hai.
Simple language mein, agar koi vyakti kisi asli cheez jaisi nakli cheez banata hai taaki log use asli samjhen, to use counterfeiting kaha ja sakta hai.
Counterfeit karne ka matlab sirf exact copy banana nahi hota.
Agar nakli cheez itni milti-julti ho ki kisi ko dhokha ho sakta hai, to law use counterfeit maan sakta hai.
Examples:
-
Fake currency note banana.
-
Nakli Aadhaar card banana.
-
Fake university degree banana.
-
Duplicate branded product banana.
-
Forged digital certificate create karna.
Legal Definition (Original Law Text)
The section provides in substance:
"A person is said to counterfeit who causes one thing to resemble another thing intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced."
The section further clarifies that exact imitation is not necessary.
Even partial resemblance may amount to counterfeiting if deception is intended.
Practical Interpretation
To establish counterfeiting, courts generally examine:
-
Whether one item was made to resemble another.
-
Whether the resemblance was intentional.
-
Whether deception was intended.
-
Whether a reasonable person could be misled.
The prosecution is not required to prove that the imitation is perfect.
The focus is on the intention and likelihood of deception.
Essential Ingredients of Counterfeiting
Resemblance
One object must resemble another object.
Intention
There must be an intention to deceive.
Knowledge
The accused knew deception was likely.
Capability of Deception
The resemblance must be capable of misleading people.
Exact Copy Not Necessary
A common misconception is that a counterfeit item must be identical to the original.
The law does not require perfect duplication.
Even a substantially similar imitation may qualify as counterfeit if it is likely to deceive.
Punishment & Legal Classification
Punishment
BNS Section 28 itself does not prescribe punishment.
It merely defines the term "Counterfeit."
Punishment arises under other provisions dealing with:
-
Counterfeit currency
-
Forgery
-
Fake seals
-
Counterfeit trademarks
-
Forged documents
-
Fake government instruments
Bailable / Non-Bailable
Not Applicable.
Cognizable / Non-Cognizable
Not Applicable.
Compoundable
Not Applicable.
Triable By
Not Applicable.
Since Section 28 is a definition clause, procedural classifications do not apply.
IPC ↔ BNS Mapping
IPC Section
Section 28 IPC
BNS Equivalent
Section 28 BNS
Status
Replaced with substantially identical provision.
Comparison Between IPC and BNS
The legal meaning of counterfeiting remains substantially unchanged.
Both provisions emphasize:
-
Resemblance.
-
Deception.
-
Intention.
-
Likelihood of misleading others.
Judicial precedents under IPC continue to provide guidance under BNS.
Real-Life Examples
Example 1
A person prints fake ₹500 notes that resemble genuine currency notes and circulates them in the market.
The notes may constitute counterfeit currency.
Example 2
An individual creates a forged university degree certificate resembling an original degree and uses it to obtain employment.
The certificate may be considered counterfeit.
Example 3
A seller manufactures shoes carrying a famous brand logo and packaging to make buyers believe the products are genuine.
The goods may amount to counterfeit products.
Additional Practical Examples
Digital Counterfeiting
Creating fake digital certificates that resemble authentic certificates.
Government Documents
Producing forged passports, driving licenses, or voter identification cards.
Business Sector
Printing counterfeit invoices and financial documents.
Banking Industry
Creating fake cheques resembling genuine bank instruments.
Landmark Judgments
Case Name
Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay
Court
Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway
Criminal intent and deceptive conduct are essential elements in offences involving false representations.
Case Name
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
Court
Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway
Knowledge and surrounding circumstances play a significant role in establishing criminal liability.
Case Name
Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration
Court
Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway
Deception and fraudulent intention are central considerations in offences involving counterfeit or fraudulent representations.
Legal Insights
When is this Section Applied?
Section 28 is commonly applied in cases involving:
-
Counterfeit currency.
-
Fake government documents.
-
Forged certificates.
-
Counterfeit trademarks.
-
Identity fraud.
-
Cyber fraud.
-
Electronic record manipulation.
The provision helps courts determine whether an imitation amounts to a counterfeit item.
Common Misuse Scenarios
Assuming Exact Copies Are Necessary
The law does not require exact duplication.
Ignoring Intention
Similarity alone is insufficient.
Intent to deceive must generally be established.
Treating Every Duplicate Item as Counterfeit
Not every copy is criminal.
The element of deception is essential.
Confusing Civil and Criminal Liability
Trademark disputes may sometimes involve civil remedies unless criminal elements exist.
Overlooking Digital Counterfeiting
Modern counterfeit activities frequently occur through digital platforms and electronic records.
Defenses Available
Common defenses include:
Lack of Intention
No intention to deceive existed.
Absence of Resemblance
The alleged counterfeit item was clearly distinguishable.
Good Faith Conduct
The accused acted without fraudulent intent.
Lack of Knowledge
The accused was unaware that the item was counterfeit.
Insufficient Evidence
The prosecution failed to prove resemblance and deceptive intent.
Importance of BNS Section 28
Section 28 is vital because it provides the legal framework for identifying counterfeit items.
It helps:
-
Protect consumers.
-
Safeguard government institutions.
-
Preserve trust in financial systems.
-
Prevent fraud.
-
Combat identity theft.
-
Strengthen cybercrime enforcement.
Without a clear definition of counterfeiting, many fraud-related offences would become difficult to prosecute.
Modern Relevance
Counterfeiting has evolved significantly in the digital age.
Modern forms include:
-
Fake QR codes.
-
Counterfeit websites.
-
Fake mobile applications.
-
Digital identity fraud.
-
Forged electronic signatures.
-
Counterfeit digital certificates.
Although technology has changed, the underlying principle remains the same: creating a resemblance with the intention to deceive.