Section 28 IPC: Counterfeit - Meaning, Definition and Explanation
Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defined when a person is said to "counterfeit." The definition focuses on causing one thing to resemble another with the intention of practising deception, or with knowledge that deception is likely to be practised.
Text of Section 28 IPC
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.
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.
Meaning of Counterfeit under Section 28 IPC
The statutory definition contains both a physical element and a mental element. A person must cause one thing to resemble another, and must either intend to use that resemblance to practise deception or know that deception is likely to result from it.
Accordingly, resemblance alone is not the whole definition. Section 28 expressly connects the resemblance with deceptive intention or the specified knowledge, subject to the presumption contained in Explanation 2.
Essential Elements of Section 28 IPC
- One thing is caused to resemble another thing.
- The resemblance is created intentionally in the factual sense required by the provision.
- The person intends, by means of the resemblance, to practise deception; or
- The person knows that deception is likely to be practised because of the resemblance.
- Under Explanation 1, an exact imitation is not necessary.
- Where the resemblance is capable of deceiving a person, Explanation 2 creates the stated presumption until the contrary is proved.
Explanation 1: Exact Imitation Is Not Necessary
Explanation 1 makes clear that counterfeiting does not require a perfect copy. The statutory test is therefore not confined to identical reproductions. An imitation may fall within the definition even though differences exist between the original thing and the thing made to resemble it.
Explanation 2: Presumption Where Resemblance May Deceive
Explanation 2 addresses proof of the required intention or knowledge. If one thing has been made to resemble another and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived, the provision directs that the specified deceptive intention or knowledge shall be presumed until the contrary is proved.
This is important because Section 28 does not merely describe visual similarity. It expressly provides an evidentiary consequence when the resemblance reaches the statutory threshold stated in Explanation 2.
Does Section 28 IPC Itself Prescribe Punishment?
No. Section 28 appeared in Chapter II of the IPC, dealing with General Explanations. It supplied a definition for the expression "counterfeit." Liability and punishment depended on the substantive IPC provision in which counterfeiting or the defined concept was relevant.
Legislative Note
The two Explanations appearing with Section 28 were substituted by Act 1 of 1889, section 9, for the earlier "Explanation." This legislative note was included with the statutory material on the original page.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the meaning of "counterfeit" under Section 28 IPC?
It meant causing one thing to resemble another with the intention, by means of that resemblance, to practise deception, or with knowledge that deception was likely thereby to be practised.
Must a counterfeit be an exact copy?
No. Explanation 1 expressly stated that it was not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.
What happens when the resemblance might deceive a person?
Explanation 2 provided that, in the circumstances stated there, the deceptive intention or knowledge would be presumed until the contrary was proved.
Was Section 28 itself a punishment provision?
No. It was a general definition in the IPC. The relevant substantive offence determined criminal liability and punishment.
Note: This page explains the historical IPC provision for informational purposes. The applicable statutory framework should be determined according to the relevant date, facts and substantive offence.