Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 199: False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
In plain words
Making a false statement on a material point, which one knows or believes is false or does not believe is true, in a declaration that a court or public servant must or may accept as evidence, is punished as if one had given false evidence.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
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 199
-
Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
According to the Range Forest Officer, the appellants (director and office bearers of the company) had illegally uprooted trees with JCB, destroyed them, and violated the section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act,…
-
Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
The issue for consideration was a challenge to the Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, mainly on the ground that apart from s. 120B…
- Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma
- Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
- N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh
- Bhima Razu Prasad v. State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe/Acu-Ii
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
- M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc
- Sasikala Pushpa and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Ors.
- State of Goa v. Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales
- Amarsang Nathaji As Himself and As Karta and Manager v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others
- R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
- Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) v. Ramesh Chander and Ors.
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors.
- Pooja Batra v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter
- Thelapalli Raghavaiah v. Station House Officer and Ors.
- N.K. Prasada v. Government of India and Ors.
- S.R. Ramaraj v. Special Court, Bombay
- Dy. General Manager, Redesignated As Deputy Director, Inter State Bus Terminal Etc. v. Smt. Sudershan Kumari and Ors. Etc.