IPC §28BNS §2

“Counterfeit”

ModifiedConfidence: mediumStatus: cross checkedconsolidation context(precautionary)
Last updated 2026-05-01 · Input coverage: full

Compiled by AI-assisted tools. Text verified against official sources where indicated. Field-level labels (AI-indicated / AI-inferred / Text-verified) apply per edge metadata. Verify current bail/cognizable status against official sources before relying on procedural claims. Last updated: 2026-05-02.

Jump to section

Comparison

Old law
IPC §28
“Counterfeit”

28. “Counterfeit”.—A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. 1[Explanation 1.—It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2.—When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised.]

New law
BNS §2
Definitions

In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,—

What changedAI-inferred

BNS Section 2(4) preserves the IPC operative test and both Explanations word-for-word. The only delta is terminal punctuation (sub-clause semicolon).

Old position

IPC Section 28 defined counterfeit as causing one thing to resemble another, with intent or knowledge of likelihood that deception would be practised. Explanation 1 confirmed the imitation need not be exact; Explanation 2 raised a rebuttable presumption of that intent or knowledge when the resemblance could deceive.

New position

BNS Section 2(4) preserves the IPC operative test and both Explanations word-for-word. The only delta is terminal punctuation (sub-clause semicolon).

Editorial deltaAI-indicated (source-linked)

IPC Section 28 and BNS Section 2(4) carry the same definition of counterfeit. The operative test (causing one thing to resemble another, with intent or knowledge of likelihood that deception will be practised), Explanation 1 (imitation need not be exact), and Explanation 2 (rebuttable presumption of intent or knowledge when the resemblance could deceive) are all textually preserved. The only delta is terminal punctuation: the IPC's full stop on Explanation 2 becomes a semicolon as part of BNS Section 2's sub-clause formatting.

Transitional note (repeal & savings)

For matters initiated before 1 July 2024, IPC 28 continues to apply. For matters from that date forward, BNS 2 applies. The transition is governed by the repeal-and-savings clause in the new code (BNS 358 / BNSS 531 / BSA 170 as the case may be); pending proceedings under the old code carry forward in their existing frame.

Frequently asked

BNS Section 2, sub-clause (4), with both Explanations preserved.

Sources

Cite this page

Newlaws.in, IPC §28 → BNS §2 Mapping Page, last updated 2026-05-01, accessed 2026-06-12, https://newlaws.in/ipc/28.

Compiled using AI-assisted tools · Source-linked · Last updated 2026-05-01

Not legal advice. Verify against the bare act and consult a qualified advocate for any specific matter.