Financial integrity is fundamental to the functioning of both public and private institutions. Any deliberate manipulation of financial records undermines this integrity and may result in serious legal consequences. To address such misconduct, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, under BNS Section 344, prescribes punishment for the falsification of accounts. This provision serves as a deterrent against dishonest conduct by employees entrusted with maintaining financial or business records.
Statutory Provision: BNS Section 344
BNS Section 344 penalizes:
“Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully and with intent to defraud makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
Essential Ingredients of the Offence
To attract liability under BNS Section 344, the following elements must be present:
- The accused must be employed in the capacity of a clerk, officer, or servant.
- The falsified document or record must relate to the business or interest of the employer.
- The act of alteration, destruction, or omission must be intentional.
- The intent must be fraudulent—intended to cause wrongful gain or loss.
The prosecution must prove both actus reus (the act of falsification) and mens rea (intent to defraud).
Illustrative Case Laws of BNS Section 344 Falsification of Accounts
1. R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration
AIR 1962 SC 1821
In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with allegations of fraudulent manipulation of company funds and falsification of books of accounts. The Court emphasized that the accused’s intent to defraud was central to establishing criminal liability.
The ruling clarified that mere errors or omissions, without dishonest intention, would not amount to an offence under this provision.
2. CBI v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
(2017) 13 SCC 153
Here, a public servant was accused of tampering with records to mask corrupt practices. The Court reiterated that tampering with official records, especially with an intention to deceive or cause wrongful gain, amounted to serious misconduct and attracted criminal liability under provisions like BNS Section 344.
3. Narayandas v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1971 SC 1656
In this decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proving fraudulent intent lies on the prosecution. If the accused can demonstrate the absence of mens rea, the charge would not stand.
Relevance in the Modern Context
With the increasing reliance on digital records and electronic documentation, falsification has evolved from handwritten ledgers to electronic manipulation. BNS Section 344 extends its scope to electronic records, thus remaining relevant and robust in the digital age.
This provision acts as a safeguard for employers, government departments, financial institutions, and the public at large against internal fraud and misconduct.
Comparative Insight: Civil Wrong vs Criminal Offence
While misstatements in accounts may sometimes lead to civil consequences (such as breach of contract or negligence), BNS Section 344 criminalizes only those acts that are carried out with a fraudulent intention.
Therefore, negligence or inadvertent errors in bookkeeping may not amount to a criminal offence unless accompanied by intent to cheat.
BNS Section 344 Falsification of Accounts Relation with Other Laws
BNS Section 344 often overlaps with other penal provisions such as:
- Section 316 – Forgery
- Section 272 – Malignant acts
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – in cases involving public servants
- Information Technology Act, 2000 – in cases involving manipulation of digital data
The cumulative application of these provisions ensures a comprehensive framework for prosecuting financial fraud.
BNS Section 344 Falsification of Accounts: Penalties and Sentencing
The offence under BNS Section 344 is punishable with:
- Imprisonment up to seven years
- Or fine
- Or both
Courts exercise discretion in sentencing based on factors such as:
- Nature and gravity of the falsification
- Quantum of financial loss
- Position of trust held by the accused
- Past conduct and intent
Defences Available
Common defences include:
- Absence of fraudulent intent
- Bona fide clerical errors
- Lack of knowledge about the record manipulation
- No material alteration or actual loss
If any of these elements are established, the accused may be acquitted.
Conclusion
BNS Section 344 Falsification of Accounts is a vital provision ensuring accountability in financial management. It sends a clear message that those entrusted with financial records must uphold honesty and transparency.
By penalizing intentional and fraudulent tampering with accounts, this section helps maintain the credibility of institutions and deters economic offences from within organizations.
It is therefore essential for employers, compliance officers, and legal professionals to remain vigilant and ensure strict adherence to record-keeping practices.
Short Note
BNS Section 344 Falsification of Accounts penalizes intentional, fraudulent tampering or falsification of records by employees, with punishment up to 7 years imprisonment, fine, or both. The provision aims to preserve financial transparency and accountability in both public and private institutions.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional.
