Furnishing False Information to a Public Servant Under the BNS (Section 212): IPC 177 Mapping (2026)

Explainer · Criminal Law · BNS

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Sometimes the law requires a person to give true information to an officer: a landholder reporting a death in the village, a party filing a return, a witness answering a lawful question. When that person is bound to inform and instead gives a false account, the law treats it as an offence against public justice. This explainer sets out the provision in plain terms: its section number under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the old Indian Penal Code (IPC) section it replaced, the two levels of punishment, and when the higher level applies. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem this section addresses

Public offices run on information. When a person who is legally bound to inform an officer gives a false account instead, it can send an inquiry the wrong way, hide a crime, or protect a wrongdoer. The law makes this a distinct offence, with a heavier punishment when the false information touches a crime.

Typical situations include:

• A person required by law to report an event gives a false version of it to the officer.
• A false account is given to screen an offence or an offender from the authorities.
• A false statement is made in answer to a lawful demand for information.

The duty to inform is the key. The offence applies only to a person who is legally bound to give the information.

02What the offence is (answer first)

Furnishing false information to a public servant is an offence under Section 212 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It replaced Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024.

The section applies to a person who, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to a public servant, furnishes, as true, information on that subject which they know or have reason to believe to be false.

The offence is not about silence. It is about giving an officer, when you are bound to inform, an account you know or believe to be false.

Note the difference from a related offence: giving false information is Section 212, while merely failing to give information you are bound to give is dealt with separately (the old IPC 176). This page is about the false-information offence.

03From IPC 177 to BNS 212: what changed

The offence carried over from the IPC with its two limbs intact. The main change is the higher fine in the basic limb.

So the structure is the same, with the basic-limb fine ceiling raised from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees.

04The two levels of punishment

Section 212 has two levels, and which one applies depends on what the false information is about.

• Basic level: simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or a fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
• Higher level: if the information relates to the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to apprehend an offender, then imprisonment of either description for a term up to two years, or a fine, or both.

05What the prosecution must show

• A legal duty to inform: the accused was legally bound to furnish the information on the subject.
• Information given as true: the accused actually furnished information, held out as true.
• Known or believed false: the accused knew, or had reason to believe, the information was false.
• For the higher level: that the information related to an offence, its prevention, or the apprehension of an offender.

The legal duty to inform is often the decisive point. If there was no such duty, the section may not apply at all.

06Related offences

Section 212 belongs to a group of BNS offences about false information and the obstruction of justice. Related explainers in this series include:

• making a false charge of an offence (the old IPC 211).
• causing disappearance of evidence or screening an offender (the old IPC 201).
• harbouring an offender (the old IPC 212).

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A Section 212 case usually turns on whether there was a legal duty to inform and on what the person knew or believed, and the old Section 177 rulings still guide both points. Claw lets you search more than 30 crore judgments, returned in under five seconds, to read how courts have handled the duty to inform and the gap between the basic and the higher limb. The live cases, orders and hearings under this section can be followed by party or advocate name across 9,102 courts, benches and forums. Claw does not use the documents you upload to train its AI models.

Create a free Claw account to look up duty-to-inform precedent and track a live matter by party or advocate name. For the wider picture, see case search across Indian courts.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (official text of central Acts): indiacode.nic.in
• BNS Section 212 (furnishing false information): devgan.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions