Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 204: Destruction of document to prevent its production 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The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
Whoever secretes or destroys any [document or electronic record] which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such [document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
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 204
-
Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee…
-
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable, warranting cancellation of bail.
-
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another
Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s.482 of the CrPC to quash the…
-
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…
-
Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of
Appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the bail application filed u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. has preferred this appeal. (i) Whether the appellant was prima facie found involved in the commission of the…
-
Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of
Whether the offence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be treated as a scheduled offence even if the criminal conspiracy alleged is to commit an…
- Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh
- State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter
- Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of West Bengal and Ors.