Offences Relating to Weights and Measures (Sections 264–267 IPC)

The provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) re-enacting Sections 264 to 267 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) punish four discrete offences relating to weights and measures: fraudulent use of a false weighing instrument, fraudulent use of a false weight or measure, possession of a false weight or measure with fraudulent intent, and making or selling a false weight or measure for use as true. The chapter is one of the shortest in the BNS — only four sections — but its conceptual reach is broad. It protects the integrity of every commercial dealing in which weight, length or capacity is the basis of price, quantity or value.

The chapter sits in close interaction with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (which replaced the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985). The Legal Metrology Act regulates the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of weights and measures with detailed standards, certification and licensing requirements. The BNS chapter sits as the criminal-law layer beneath the Legal Metrology framework — fraudulent conduct that does not merely fall foul of the Metrology Act's regulatory requirements but is animated by an intent to deceive in commercial dealings.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The four offences in this chapter cluster as follows:

1. Fraudulent use of false weighing instrument (previously Section 264 IPC).
2. Fraudulent use of false weight or measure of length or capacity (previously Section 265 IPC).
3. Possession of false instrument or false weight or measure with fraudulent intent (previously Section 266 IPC).
4. Making, selling or disposing of false weighing instrument or false weight or measure for use as true (previously Section 267 IPC).

Each offence carries imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. The chapter is, by design, a fine-led regime: the legislature recognised in 1860 that small-scale fraud in commercial measurements is widespread, that imprisonment for every offence would be disproportionate, and that the principal sanction lies in the regulatory machinery of the (now) Legal Metrology Act backed by the criminal sanction of this chapter for fraudulent conduct. The doctrinal balance is the same balance struck for many lesser commercial offences across the BNS — see, for instance, the chapter on general definitions and explanations for the wider drafting strategy.

Section corresponding to Section 264 IPC — fraudulent use of false weighing instrument

The first provision punishes whoever fraudulently uses any instrument for weighing which he knows to be false. Two elements must be proved: (i) fraudulent use of the false weighing instrument, and (ii) knowledge that the instrument is false. Imprisonment may extend to one year, or fine, or both.

What is a "false" weighing instrument?

The word false in this and the following sections means different from the instrument, weight or measure that the offender and the person defrauded have fixed upon — expressly or by implication — with reference to their mutual dealings. The leading authority is Kanayalal, Re AIR 1939 Sind 64. Where it was agreed between seller and purchaser that a particular measure was to be used in measuring the item sold, it was held that, even though the measure was not of the standard requirement, it was not "false" within the section, and there was no fraudulent intent. The case stands for the proposition that the standard for the offence is the standard between the parties, not the legal-metrology standard fixed by the State.

Fraudulent use

The use must be fraudulent — that is, the user must intend to deceive the counterparty by giving short weight, short measure, or otherwise to obtain an advantage to which he would not be entitled if the true weight or measure were used. The intent must be present at the time of use; subsequent realisation that the instrument was inaccurate, without prior knowledge, does not satisfy the section.

Section corresponding to Section 265 IPC — fraudulent use of false weight or measure

The second provision punishes whoever fraudulently uses any false weight or false measure of length or capacity, or fraudulently uses any weight or measure as a different weight or measure from what it is. The reach is therefore wider than the first provision: it catches both (i) the use of an inherently false weight or measure, and (ii) the use of a true weight or measure as if it were a different one.

Three ingredients

1. The weight or measure is a false one (or the true weight or measure is being used as a different one).
2. The accused used such a weight or measure.
3. The accused did so fraudulently.

The section catches three commercial fraud patterns. First, the seller who uses a weight stamped "one kilogram" but actually weighing eight hundred grams. Second, the trader who uses a true one-litre measure but represents it as a one-and-a-half-litre measure. Third, the merchant who uses a true weight but in such a way as to deceive — for example, weighing on a tilted balance.

Section corresponding to Section 266 IPC — possession with fraudulent intent

The third provision punishes whoever is in possession of any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity which he knows to be false, intending that the same may be fraudulently used. Imprisonment may extend to one year, or fine, or both. The offence sits in the same family as Section 180 BNS on possession of forged coin or counterfeit notes: in both cases, possession-with-intent is a discrete, downstream-protective offence anterior to actual use.

Knowledge and intent — both required

Hamirmal, Re (1890) 15 Bom 195 holds that the mere possession of false weights or measures does not raise any strong presumption of fraud. The prosecution must show that the accused (i) knew the weights to be false and (ii) intended to use them fraudulently. The double mens rea requirement protects the trader who has innocently received a false weight from a supplier — without proof of his knowledge and intent, possession alone is not the offence.

Standard between the parties

Kanayalal, Re applies here too. A measure is false if it is something other than what it purports to be. If both the purchaser and seller are aware of the actual measure being used, there is no fraudulent intent. The offence is only made out where the seller purports to sell according to a certain standard but in fact sells below that standard.

Section corresponding to Section 267 IPC — making or selling false weight or measure

The fourth provision punishes whoever makes, sells or disposes of any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity which he knows to be false, in order that the same may be used as true, or knowing that the same is likely to be used as true. Imprisonment may extend to one year, or fine, or both.

The object of the provision is to prevent the circulation of false scales, weights or measures. The provision is upstream of the use offences and supplies the criminal sanction against the manufacturer or trader who, by making or selling a false weight, supplies the instrumentality of fraud to many downstream users.

Mens rea pattern across the chapter

The four offences operate on a graded mens rea spectrum:

1. Fraudulent use of false weighing instrument — knowledge that the instrument is false and fraudulent use.
2. Fraudulent use of false weight or measure — knowledge of falsity (or of representation as different) and fraudulent use.
3. Possession with fraudulent intent — knowledge of falsity plus intent that the same be fraudulently used.
4. Making or selling false weight or measure — knowledge of falsity plus intent that the same be used as true, or knowledge of likelihood.

The pattern is consistent: each offence requires both knowledge of the falsity of the instrument and an intent directed at fraudulent use or its likelihood. Innocent possession or innocent use, without the requisite mens rea, is not the offence.

Interaction with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009

The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 supplies a comprehensive regulatory framework for weights and measures. Sections 24 to 47 of that Act create offences ranging from manufacturing or selling without verification (Section 33), to using non-standard weights (Section 25), to selling pre-packaged items that do not conform to the prescribed standards (Section 36). The Legal Metrology offences are largely strict-liability — they punish non-compliance with the regulatory regime regardless of fraudulent intent. The BNS chapter, by contrast, requires fraudulent intent and serves as the higher-grade criminal sanction for the more egregious cases.

In practice, the same conduct often engages both regimes. A trader who sells goods using a non-verified weight commits an offence under Section 25 of the Legal Metrology Act; if he does so fraudulently, knowing the weight to be false, he also commits the offence under the corresponding BNS provision. The two regimes operate cumulatively without offending the rule against double jeopardy because they protect different interests — the Metrology Act protects the regulatory framework; the BNS protects the counterparty's right not to be defrauded in commercial dealings. The principles of general exceptions, particularly mistake of fact, may operate to negate the requisite mens rea in marginal cases under both regimes.

Cognate doctrines: cheating and abetment

The chapter must be read alongside the cheating provisions of Section 318 BNS (previously Section 415 IPC) on cheating. Where the use of a false weight induces the buyer to part with property that he would not otherwise have parted with, both this chapter and Section 318 BNS apply, with cumulative liability under Section 9 BNS. The two offences differ in scope: the chapter offences are specific to weights and measures and are made out on the use of the false weight regardless of whether the buyer was actually deceived; cheating requires actual delivery of property by the deceived person.

The doctrine of abetment under Section 45 BNS attaches naturally to weight-and-measure offences. The supplier who knowingly delivers a false weight to a trader, intending that the trader use it to defraud his customers, is an abettor. The accountant who falsifies the records of weighed-out items to support the trader's fraud is an abettor. The framework is the same as in other criminal chapters; the application is to a specific commercial fraud setting.

Selected case law

• Kanayalal, Re AIR 1939 Sind 64 — the standard for falseness is the standard between the parties; agreed-upon non-standard measure is not "false".
• Hamirmal, Re (1890) 15 Bom 195 — mere possession of false weights does not raise a strong presumption of fraud; knowledge and fraudulent intent must be proved.

The case law is sparse — not because the offences are uncommon, but because in practice prosecutions are typically brought under the Legal Metrology Act, with its lower mens rea threshold and its specific regulatory machinery. The BNS chapter retains relevance for the cases where fraudulent intent must be punished as such, and where the higher BNS sanction is sought.

Procedural aspects

Three procedural points must be remembered. First, the four offences in this chapter are non-cognisable, bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class — under the First Schedule to the BNSS. Second, no special sanction is required to take cognizance — Section 196 BNSS does not apply. Third, the limitation period under Section 514 BNSS is one year for offences carrying imprisonment up to one year. By contrast, prosecutions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 are governed by their own statute of limitations and are triable in the manner provided by that Act.

Sentencing pattern

All four offences carry uniform punishment — imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. The sentencing court must consider three factors. First, the scale of the fraud — a single transaction is materially different from a long-running scheme affecting many counterparties. Second, the position of the offender — the manufacturer of false weights is in a different position from the trader who uses one. Third, restitution — the willingness of the accused to compensate the defrauded counterparty bears on the sentence. The general framework for the sentencing exercise is set out in the chapter on punishments — kinds, solitary confinement and fines.

Constitutional and policy backdrop

Weights and measures are the bedrock of commercial activity. Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 50 of List I (Establishment of standards of weight and measure) places the establishment of standards in the Union List, while Entry 33A of List III (Weights and measures, except establishment of standards) places enforcement in the Concurrent List. The result is a layered architecture: the Union sets the standards through the Bureau of Indian Standards and the Legal Metrology Act; the States enforce compliance through their own legal-metrology directorates; and the BNS provides the criminal-law sanction for fraudulent conduct.

The policy concern that animated the original Sections 264 to 267 IPC was the prevalence of small-scale fraud in retail commerce. The 1860 Code recognised that imprisonment for every short-weighed bag of grain would be disproportionate, but that some criminal sanction was needed to deter the most egregious fraud. The four sections together create such a sanction: short, focused, with a uniform punishment of one year, and reserved for cases of fraudulent intent. The legislative judgment of 1860 has stood the test of time. The BNS retains the architecture without alteration.

Comparative perspective — pre-packaged goods

The most common modern application of weight-and-measure offences is in the context of pre-packaged goods. The Legal Metrology (Packaged Goods) Rules, 2011 require pre-packaged goods to display the net quantity, the maximum retail price, and other declarations. Where a manufacturer or packer wilfully short-fills a pre-packaged item with intent to deceive purchasers, the conduct may engage both the Packaged Goods Rules (regulatory liability) and the BNS provisions on weights and measures (criminal liability for fraudulent intent). The two regimes operate cumulatively, with the regulatory regime catching most cases and the criminal regime catching the small subset that crosses the fraudulent-intent threshold.

Burden of proof and standard of evidence

The prosecution must prove three matters in any case under the chapter. First, the falseness of the weight, measure or instrument — typically by comparison against a verified standard. Second, the accused's knowledge of the falseness — typically by inference from the circumstances, including the position of the accused in the trade, the regularity of inspections, and prior similar dealings. Third, the fraudulent intent — typically by inference from the use itself, the relationship between buyer and seller, and the consideration involved.

The standard of proof is the criminal standard — beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of any doubt on the question of knowledge or fraudulent intent — a position consistent with the broader principle that mens rea must be positively proved by the prosecution. Hamirmal, Re is the canonical authority on the proposition that mere possession does not raise a strong presumption of fraud — the prosecution must travel the full distance.

The chapter and consumer protection

The chapter sits as one part of a wider consumer-protection architecture in Indian law. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 supplies civil remedies for unfair trade practices including short measure and short weight. The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 supplies contractual remedies for delivery short of contract specification. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 supplies regulatory remedies. The BNS chapter supplies the criminal remedy for the small subset of cases involving fraudulent intent. The aspirant should remember that a single short-weight transaction can engage all four regimes — civil consumer remedy, contractual remedy, regulatory penalty, and BNS criminal sanction — and that the choice of regime depends on the relief sought and the strength of the mens rea evidence.

Sentencing factors and prosecutorial discretion

The chapter's uniform punishment of imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both, places these offences at the lower-mid range of the BNS sentencing ladder. The trial court has wide discretion in choosing between imprisonment and fine, and between a custodial sentence and the lesser punishment of fine alone — including, in appropriate cases, the new BNS option of community service for offences whose harm is amenable to restorative responses. Three factors recur in the sentencing exercise.

First, the scale and persistence of the fraud. A single short-weight transaction in a small village shop is sentenced differently from a sustained scheme operated by a wholesale trader across multiple markets. Second, the victim profile — fraud against ordinary household consumers is treated more seriously than fraud against sophisticated commercial counterparties who have the resources to verify weights themselves. Third, the institutional position — a manufacturer of false weights faces a heavier sentence than an end-user, because the manufacturer supplies the instrumentality of fraud to many downstream actors.

Prosecutorial discretion is also a major factor in practice. Most weight-and-measure cases are resolved through the regulatory machinery of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 — verification, sealing, compounding of offences, and small fines. The BNS chapter is invoked in the smaller subset where fraudulent intent is clear and where a more substantial and substantively criminal sanction is sought against the offender.

Reading the chapter as a system

The four BNS provisions on weights and measures form the smallest substantive chapter in the Code, but together they create a closed protective scheme: making and selling (upstream), possession with intent (intermediate), and use (downstream). Each offence requires both knowledge of falsity and fraudulent intent — a dual mens rea standard that distinguishes criminal liability under the BNS from regulatory liability under the Legal Metrology Act. The chapter sits in close interaction with the cheating chapter, the chapter on offences relating to property, and the broader framework of commercial fraud regulation. For the exam-aspirant, the doctrinal takeaways are three: (i) the standard for "false" is the standard between the parties, not the State's metrology standard; (ii) the chapter is dual-mens-rea throughout — knowledge plus intent; and (iii) the chapter does not displace the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, with which it operates cumulatively. Criminal conspiracy under Section 61 BNS attaches where two or more persons agree to use false weights, and the doctrine of attempt under Section 23 BNS attaches where the use is interrupted before completion.

Frequently asked questions

What is a "false" weight or measure under the BNS?

A weight or measure is false if it is something other than what it purports to be. Kanayalal, Re (AIR 1939 Sind 64) holds that the standard is the standard between the parties — what the offender and the person defrauded have fixed upon, expressly or by implication, with reference to their mutual dealings. A non-standard measure agreed between buyer and seller is not "false" for the purposes of the section. The provision is therefore narrower than the regulatory falseness used in the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Is mere possession of a false weight an offence?

No — mere possession is not the offence. The provision corresponding to Section 266 IPC requires (i) knowledge that the weight or measure is false, and (ii) intent that the same be fraudulently used. Hamirmal, Re (1890) 15 Bom 195 holds that mere possession does not raise a strong presumption of fraud; the prosecution must positively prove both knowledge and fraudulent intent. A trader who has innocently received a false weight without further intent is not within the section.

Does this chapter overlap with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009?

Yes — the two regimes operate cumulatively. The Legal Metrology Act creates strict-liability offences for non-compliance with the regulatory requirements (Sections 24 to 47), while the BNS chapter requires fraudulent intent. The same conduct can attract both. There is no double jeopardy because the protected interests differ — the Metrology Act protects the regulatory framework; the BNS protects the counterparty's right not to be defrauded in commercial dealings.

What is the punishment for the BNS offences on weights and measures?

All four offences — fraudulent use of false weighing instrument, fraudulent use of false weight or measure, possession with fraudulent intent, and making or selling false weight or measure — carry uniform punishment of imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. The chapter is, by design, a fine-led regime, with the principal regulatory sanction left to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the criminal sanction reserved for cases of fraudulent intent.

What is the difference between the chapter and Section 318 BNS on cheating?

The chapter offences are made out on the use of a false weight regardless of whether the buyer was in fact deceived or parted with property. Section 318 BNS on cheating requires deception that induces the deceived person to deliver property or to do or omit something which he would not have done but for the deception. The two operate cumulatively. A trader using a false weight commits both offences where the customer pays based on the false weight; a trader using a false weight detected before the sale completes commits only the chapter offence and not the cheating offence — though the conduct may still engage the doctrine of attempted offences under Section 23 BNS.

Can the chapter be invoked against the manufacturer of false weights?

Yes — directly. The provision corresponding to Section 267 IPC punishes whoever makes, sells or disposes of any instrument for weighing, or any weight, or any measure of length or capacity which he knows to be false, in order that the same may be used as true, or knowing that the same is likely to be used as true. The provision targets the upstream supplier of the instrumentality of fraud. The mens rea is knowledge of falsity plus intent or knowledge of likelihood of use as true.