What is IPC Section 199?
IPC Section 199 sits in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, "Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice," directly following Section 198 (using as true a certificate known to be false). Together with Section 197 (issuing or signing a false certificate), Section 199 extends the Code's perjury-related provisions beyond direct courtroom testimony, to cover the broader category of written declarations — affidavits, statutory declarations, and similar documents — that the law specifically designates as admissible evidence of a fact.
The section's mental-state requirement is notably broad: it covers not only knowing falsity or genuine belief in falsity, but also situations where the person simply does not believe the statement to be true — a formulation slightly wider than requiring outright knowledge, capturing reckless indifference to the truth of a material statement made in a legally significant declaration.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Section 199 IPC now corresponds to Section 236 of the BNS, which retains the same substantive scope, updating the phrase "Court of Justice" to "Court."
Legal Provision — Text of Section 199 IPC
This provision must be read together with Section 193 (punishment for false evidence), whose framework Section 199 directly borrows, and Section 200 (using as true a declaration known to be false), which addresses reliance on such a false declaration. Together with Section 197 (false certificates), these provisions form a comprehensive scheme covering false statements made across various legally significant, non-testimonial documents.
Punishment Under Section 199
| Punishment | The same punishment as for giving false evidence — generally up to 7 years and fine, or up to 3 years and fine, depending on the specific circumstances under Section 193 |
|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Non-cognizable — police generally require a Magistrate's order to investigate or arrest |
| Bailable / Non-Bailable | Bailable — bail is a matter of right |
| Compoundable | Non-compoundable |
| Triable By | The same court by which the offence of giving false evidence is triable |
Because it borrows the false evidence punishment framework, the exact sentence available depends on the specific facts, particularly whether the false declaration was made or used in the course of a judicial proceeding, which is the key factor distinguishing the different punishment tiers under Section 193.
Key Ingredients / Essential Elements
A declaration legally receivable as evidence
The declaration must be one that a Court of Justice, public servant, or other person is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of a fact.
A false statement
The accused must have made a statement in that declaration which was, in fact, false.
Knowledge, belief of falsity, or not believing it true
The accused must have known or believed the statement was false, or simply not believed it to be true.
Materiality
The false statement must touch a point material to the object for which the declaration was made or used.
How Section 199 Relates to Neighbouring Provisions
- Section 193 prescribes the general punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence, which Section 199 directly borrows.
- Section 197 punishes issuing or signing a false certificate required by law or admissible in evidence — the companion offence for certificates rather than declarations.
- Section 199 (this section) punishes making a false statement in a declaration legally receivable as evidence.
- Section 200 punishes using as true a declaration known to be false — the companion offence targeting reliance on, rather than creation of, the false declaration.
Important Cases on Section 199
Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1236
The Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging falsity in an affidavit filed before a Rent Control Officer could not be held maintainable in the absence of any specific averment identifying which particular statements in the affidavit were actually false. The Court emphasised that vague or general allegations of falsity are insufficient to sustain a prosecution — the complaint must specifically identify the material statements alleged to be false.