Whoever counterfeits any property mark used by any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
IPC Section 483: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 483 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to the offence of counterfeiting a device or mark used for authenticating documents other than those described in sections 467, 468, 477, and 480. This section is aimed at individuals who counterfeit any device or mark used for authenticating less critical documents, ensuring that the integrity of lesser-known but still important authentications remains intact.
The aim is to protect the authenticity of various lesser-known marks or devices that public servants or authorised individuals use to certify or authenticate documents that do not fall under the most severe categories of forgery but are still significant in daily transactions and legal processes.
Is IPC Section 483 Bailable?
IPC Section 483 is bailable. This status means that the accused has the right to be released on bail, typically upon furnishing a bond or surety as determined by the police or court, based on the case’s specifics.
IPC Section 483 Punishment
Under IPC Section 483, the Punishment for counterfeiting a device or mark used for authenticating documents is imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, a fine, or both. This penalty is intended to deter the act of counterfeiting these devices or marks and uphold the credibility of less prominent but essential authentication processes.
Example of IPC Section 483
A real-life example of an offence under IPC Section 483 could involve an individual creating counterfeit stamps that a municipal corporation uses to authenticate property tax receipts. Suppose someone manufactures these fake stamps and sells them to individuals who use them to produce counterfeit property tax receipts. This act would fall under IPC Section 483, as it involves counterfeiting marks used to authenticate documents important for local governance but not as critical as those under the most severe forgery categories. This prevents financial fraud and maintains the integrity of local administrative processes.
