Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter X: Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants
Section 177: Furnishing false information
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations [Explanation.—In section 176 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of [India], which, if committed in [India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word “offender” includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act.]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 177
-
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking.
-
Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.
In the instant case, the Single Judge of the High Court directed that the investigation be handed over to CBI. Whether the order of the Single Judge of the High Court is sustainable.
-
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
The appellant-Judicial Officer has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by the Delhi High Court.
-
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Another
Petitioners sought directions for re-introduction of the paper ballot system; or that the printed slip from the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machine be given to the voter to verify, and put in the ballot…
- M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc
- Jeetendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
- G H Kanwar Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr.
- Satish Ukey v. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis and Anr.
- State of Jharkhand Through Sp, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Y Aday