Analysis of Section 171 IPC

An Analysis of Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Fraudulent Impersonation by Garb or Token

Introduction

Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses a specific form of impersonation: the act of wearing the garb or carrying any token used by a public servant with fraudulent intent. This provision, situated in Chapter IX titled "Of Offences By Or Relating To Public Servants," aims to preserve the sanctity and authority associated with public office and to prevent deception that could arise from the unauthorized use of official insignia or attire. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 171 IPC, examining its statutory language, essential ingredients, judicial interpretations, procedural nuances, and its distinction from other related offences, particularly those concerning elections.

Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code: The Statutory Mandate

Section 171 IPC is worded as follows:

"171. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent.— Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both."

Essential Ingredients of Section 171 IPC

A plain reading of the section reveals the following essential ingredients that the prosecution must establish to secure a conviction:

  • The accused person does not belong to the specific class of public servants whose garb or token is being used.
  • The accused wears a garb or carries a token that resembles the garb or token used by that class of public servants.
  • The accused does so with a fraudulent intent, which is characterized by either:
    • The intention that it may be believed that he belongs to that class of public servants; or
    • The knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class of public servants.

The term "public servant" is defined extensively under Section 21 of the IPC. The "garb or token" refers to uniforms, badges, insignia, or any other distinguishing marks associated with a particular class of public servants.

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 171 IPC

The Element of 'Fraudulent Intent' (Mens Rea)

The cornerstone of Section 171 IPC is the 'fraudulent intent'. The mere act of wearing a garb or carrying a token resembling that of a public servant is insufficient to constitute an offence. The prosecution must prove the requisite mens rea – that the accused intended to cause a false belief about their official status or knew that such a belief was likely to arise. This intent distinguishes culpable acts from innocent ones, such as wearing a costume for a theatrical performance, provided such an act is not coupled with the specified fraudulent intent.

'Wearing Garb or Carrying Token' (Actus Reus)

The actus reus involves the physical act of wearing the garb or carrying the token. The resemblance must be close enough to potentially deceive others into believing that the wearer or carrier is a member of the class of public servants in question.

Illustrative Case Law: NISHA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

The application of Section 171 IPC was considered in NISHA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Uttarakhand High Court, 2023)[15]. In this case, the applicant challenged a charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 171 IPC. The allegation was that the applicant, Nisha, falsely represented herself as being in the police department and "kept on wandering illegally in the disguise of Police, wearing star, belt and cap while she was not working in police department." The High Court, in dismissing the C482 application, observed that "From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the averments made in the present C482 Application, the case of the prosecution is prima facie proved and there were sufficient grounds for summoning the accused-applicant under Section 171 of IPC". This case underscores that allegations of wearing official police insignia without authorization, coupled with circumstances suggesting an intent to be believed as a police officer, can form a prima facie basis for proceedings under Section 171 IPC.

Incidental Reference: Sharda Madan Shirsate v. State Bank Of India

In Sharda Madan Shirsate v. State Bank Of India (Bombay High Court, 2020)[17], a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) listed several IPC sections under which action was sought against bank officials. Among them was "Section 171 of IPC: wearing garb or carrying taken used by public servant with fraudulent intent". While the PIL was dismissed as misconceived, the reference correctly identifies the essence of Section 171 IPC.

Distinction from Offences under Chapter IX-A IPC (Election Offences)

It is imperative to distinguish Section 171 IPC from the offences enumerated in Chapter IX-A of the IPC, titled "Of Offences Relating To Elections," which spans Sections 171A to 171I. These sections deal specifically with malpractices related to the electoral process. For instance:

The offence of "personation at an election" under Section 171F IPC, punishing acts defined in Section 171D IPC, is distinct from the general offence of impersonating a public servant by wearing garb or token under Section 171 IPC. The former is specific to the electoral context, while the latter has a broader application concerning any class of public servants. The reference materials concerning Sections 171A-171I IPC primarily illuminate the legal framework for electoral offences and are not directly interpretative of Section 171 IPC itself, other than for drawing procedural analogies for non-cognizable offences, as discussed below.

Procedural Aspects Governing Section 171 IPC

Nature of the Offence: Non-Cognizable

According to the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), an offence under Section 171 IPC is non-cognizable and bailable. It is triable by any Magistrate.

Investigation of Non-Cognizable Offences: Section 155(2) CrPC

Being a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot investigate an offence under Section 171 IPC without an order from a Magistrate, as mandated by Section 155(2) CrPC. This sub-section states: "No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial."

The importance of adhering to this procedure has been emphasized in several judgments, often in the context of non-cognizable election offences under Chapter IX-A IPC, which share this procedural characteristic with Section 171 IPC. For instance, in P.M.Narasimman v. The Inspector (Madras High Court, 2018)[22], concerning an FIR for the non-cognizable offence of S.171B IPC, the Madras High Court quashed the FIR, noting that registering it without obtaining a prior order from the jurisdictional Magistrate under S.155(2) CrPC was "opposed to the well laid down procedure". Similarly, in SRI. LAKOPATI HANAMANTAPPA HOSAPETI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Karnataka High Court, 2020)[20], proceedings for an offence under S.171H IPC (non-cognizable) were quashed because the investigation was conducted without a specific order from the Magistrate as required by S.155(2) CrPC, vitiating the entire investigation. This principle was reiterated in SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA ARALIKATTI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Karnataka High Court, 2024)[21]. Furthermore, in MR. RAMI REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Karnataka High Court, 2022)[23], the court emphasized that a Magistrate, while granting permission under S.155(2) CrPC, must apply their mind, and a mere endorsement like "permitted" without due application of mind is improper. These precedents, although dealing with election offences, lay down general principles applicable to all non-cognizable offences, including Section 171 IPC, regarding the mandatory nature of S.155(2) CrPC.

Inapplicability of Section 195 CrPC

Section 195(1)(a) CrPC imposes restrictions on the court's power to take cognizance of certain offences (Sections 172 to 188 IPC, among others) except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned or their administrative superior. As elucidated in Maneesh Goomer Petitioner v. State (Delhi High Court, 2012)[8] and Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar Bimal @ Sri Dr Vijay Kumar Bimal @ Vijay Kumar Bimal v. State Of Bihar and Anr (Patna High Court, 2025 [sic, likely a typo for an earlier year, judgment context suggests recent jurisprudence])[9], non-compliance with Section 195 CrPC for the specified offences vitiates the prosecution.

However, Section 171 IPC is not enumerated within the list of offences covered by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. Therefore, the special requirement of a complaint by the public servant concerned, as stipulated for offences like those under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, does not apply to Section 171 IPC. Notwithstanding this, the procedure under Section 155(2) CrPC for investigating a non-cognizable offence remains paramount for Section 171 IPC.

Scope of 'Public Servant' and 'Garb or Token'

The definition of "public servant" under Section 21 IPC is extensive, covering a wide array of government officials and other persons performing public duties. The terms "garb" or "token" are not explicitly defined in the IPC but are understood in their ordinary sense to mean official dress, uniform, insignia, badges, or any other symbols that are distinctive of a particular class of public servants and serve to identify them as such to the public. The resemblance must be such that it is capable of deceiving an ordinary person into believing that the impersonator is a genuine public servant of that class.

Conclusion

Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, serves as a deterrent against the fraudulent impersonation of public servants through the unauthorized use of official garb or tokens. The provision hinges critically on the element of 'fraudulent intent,' ensuring that only deceptive acts aimed at creating a false belief of official status are penalized. While the punishment prescribed is relatively minor, the section upholds the principle of protecting public authority from misuse and deception.

The judicial interpretation, particularly in cases like NISHA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[15], affirms the applicability of the section where prima facie evidence of such impersonation with intent exists. It is crucial to distinguish Section 171 IPC from the election-specific offences in Chapter IX-A IPC. Procedurally, the non-cognizable nature of Section 171 IPC mandates strict adherence to Section 155(2) CrPC, requiring a Magistrate's order for police investigation. Failure to comply with this can vitiate the proceedings, as established by judicial precedents concerning non-cognizable offences. A clear understanding of these substantive and procedural aspects is essential for the proper application and enforcement of this legal provision.

References

Note: Case citations are based on the provided reference materials. Year for Ref 9 appears as 2025 in source, which is likely a typographical error.