- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 174 - Punishment for Undue Influence or Personation at an Election
Introduction
Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) prescribes the punishment for two forms of electoral misconduct: undue influence at an election and personation at an election.
The provision is an important part of the statutory framework protecting the integrity of elections and the freedom and authenticity of electoral participation.
Elections are intended to provide voters with an opportunity to exercise their electoral rights through a process that is free from improper interference and fraudulent representation.
Two forms of conduct can undermine that objective.
The first is undue influence, which concerns improper interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
The second is personation, which concerns fraudulent participation in an election by assuming another person’s electoral identity or otherwise engaging in conduct constituting election personation.
Section 174 addresses both forms of misconduct through a common punishment provision.
It states that whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
The provision is significant because it does not itself set out a detailed definition of undue influence or personation.
Instead, it operates as a punishment provision for those offences.
This distinction is essential.
In a legal problem involving Section 174, it is necessary first to determine whether the conduct amounts to undue influence or personation at an election under the applicable substantive provisions.
Once the underlying offence is established, Section 174 supplies the punishment.
The word “or” is particularly important.
The section does not require the accused to commit both undue influence and personation.
Commission of either offence is sufficient to bring the punishment provision into consideration.
The punishment is also expressed in the alternative.
The court may impose imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to one year, or fine, or both imprisonment and fine.
According to the supplied classification, Section 174 is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 174 BNS corresponds to Section 171-F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The commentary states that the language remains unchanged and that the provision has been retained as it was.
Central Memory Formula
UNDUE INFLUENCE AT AN ELECTION
OR
PERSONATION AT AN ELECTION
=
SECTION 174 BNS
Punishment Formula
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO ONE YEAR
OR
FINE
OR
BOTH
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 174
Q1. What does Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 174 provides punishment for a person who commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both.
Q2. What is the title of Section 174 BNS?
Answer:
The title is:
Punishment for Undue Influence or Personation at an Election.
The title identifies both offences to which the punishment provision applies.
Q3. What is the principal object of Section 174?
Answer:
The principal object is to prescribe criminal punishment for undue influence and personation in connection with elections.
The provision supports the protection of electoral freedom and the authenticity of electoral participation.
Q4. Does Section 174 create one offence or refer to two forms of electoral misconduct?
Answer:
Section 174 refers to two forms of electoral misconduct:
Undue influence at an election.
Personation at an election.
It prescribes punishment where either offence is committed.
Q5. Does Section 174 require both undue influence and personation to occur?
Answer:
No.
The section uses the word “or”.
Therefore, commission of either offence may attract Section 174.
Q6. Is Section 174 primarily a definitional provision?
Answer:
No.
Section 174 is primarily a punishment provision.
It identifies the offences of undue influence and personation at an election and prescribes their punishment.
Q7. Why is it important to distinguish a punishment provision from a definition provision?
Answer:
A definition provision identifies the conduct and elements constituting an offence.
A punishment provision specifies the consequences of committing that offence.
Section 174 does not reproduce the full ingredients of undue influence or personation.
Therefore, those ingredients should not be invented or treated as though they appear expressly in Section 174 itself.
Q8. What is the central legal question in a Section 174 case?
Answer:
The central question is whether the accused committed undue influence or personation at an election.
If the underlying offence is established, the punishment prescribed by Section 174 becomes applicable.
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 174
Q9. What are the essential requirements for applying Section 174?
Answer:
The provision requires:
First: Commission of the offence of undue influence at an election, or commission of the offence of personation at an election.
Second: A sufficient connection with an election, as required by the underlying offence.
Third: Establishment of the legal ingredients of the particular underlying offence.
Once these matters are established, Section 174 prescribes the punishment.
Q10. Must the prosecution identify which underlying offence is alleged?
Answer:
Yes.
It is important to identify whether the allegation concerns undue influence or personation.
The two offences involve different forms of misconduct and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Q11. Is proof of undue influence sufficient without proving personation?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 174 expressly applies to undue influence or personation.
Proof of undue influence may therefore attract the punishment provision without proof of personation.
Q12. Is proof of personation sufficient without proving undue influence?
Answer:
Yes.
Personation is an independent alternative under the section.
Q13. Does Section 174 expressly require the accused to be a candidate?
Answer:
No.
The provision uses the expression “whoever”.
It does not restrict its wording to candidates alone.
Q14. Does Section 174 expressly require the accused to be a voter?
Answer:
No.
The punishment provision does not itself state that the accused must be a registered voter.
The ingredients of the underlying offence must be considered separately.
Q15. Does Section 174 expressly require the accused to be an election official?
Answer:
No.
There is no such restriction in the supplied wording.
Q16. Must the misconduct relate to an election?
Answer:
Yes.
Both offences are expressly described as occurring “at an election”.
The electoral context is therefore essential.
Q17. Must the accused obtain a personal financial benefit?
Answer:
Section 174 does not expressly require personal financial benefit.
Liability depends on commission of the underlying electoral offence.
Q18. Must the candidate supported by the accused win the election?
Answer:
Section 174 does not expressly require electoral victory.
The focus is on commission of undue influence or personation at an election.
Q19. Must the election result actually change?
Answer:
Section 174 does not expressly require proof that the election result changed.
Whether any particular consequence is necessary must be determined from the ingredients of the underlying offence.
Q20. Can Section 174 be applied merely because conduct appears politically improper?
Answer:
No.
The conduct must constitute undue influence or personation at an election.
General political impropriety is not automatically sufficient.
Part III — Undue Influence at an Election
Q21. What is undue influence at an election?
Answer:
In general terms, undue influence at an election concerns improper interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
However, Section 174 itself does not reproduce the detailed statutory definition.
The precise ingredients must be established under the relevant substantive provision.
Q22. What is the central concern underlying undue influence?
Answer:
The central concern is the protection of the freedom to exercise electoral rights without prohibited interference.
Q23. Does every attempt to persuade a voter constitute undue influence?
Answer:
No.
Ordinary political persuasion should not automatically be equated with undue influence.
The conduct must satisfy the legal requirements of the underlying offence.
Q24. Does criticism of an opposing candidate automatically amount to undue influence?
Answer:
No.
Political criticism alone does not automatically establish undue influence.
The particular conduct must be assessed against the substantive ingredients of that offence.
Q25. Can improper pressure on a voter be relevant to undue influence?
Answer:
Yes.
Improper pressure interfering with the free exercise of electoral rights may be relevant.
However, whether it legally constitutes undue influence depends on the underlying statutory definition and the evidence.
Q26. Can threats be relevant to undue influence?
Answer:
Potentially, yes.
Threats directed at influencing the exercise of electoral rights may raise a question of undue influence.
The precise legal ingredients must still be established.
Q27. Does Section 174 itself list every prohibited form of undue influence?
Answer:
No.
The supplied text of Section 174 does not contain such a list.
It prescribes punishment for the underlying offence.
Q28. Does Section 174 expressly require physical violence?
Answer:
No.
Physical violence is not stated as an independent requirement in Section 174.
The legal requirements of undue influence must be determined separately.
Q29. Is a mere disagreement between political supporters sufficient to establish undue influence?
Answer:
No.
A disagreement does not automatically establish the underlying offence.
Q30. Why should students avoid giving an overly broad definition of undue influence based only on Section 174?
Answer:
Because Section 174 is a punishment provision.
It does not itself provide the full definition of undue influence.
A correct answer should distinguish the general concept from the precise statutory ingredients of the underlying offence.
Part IV — Personation at an Election
Q31. What is personation at an election?
Answer:
In general terms, personation at an election concerns fraudulent electoral participation involving the assumption or misuse of another person’s electoral identity.
However, the exact statutory scope of the offence must be determined from its substantive definition.
Section 174 itself prescribes punishment rather than reproducing that definition.
Q32. What is the central concern underlying personation?
Answer:
The central concern is the authenticity of electoral participation.
The offence addresses conduct undermining the principle that electoral rights should be exercised by the persons legally entitled to exercise them.
Q33. Does personation concern the identity of a person participating in an election?
Answer:
Yes.
Identity is central to the general concept of electoral personation.
The precise legal ingredients must still be established.
Q34. Can pretending to be another voter raise a question of personation?
Answer:
Yes.
Such conduct may raise a question of personation at an election.
Whether the offence is legally established depends on the substantive statutory definition and the facts.
Q35. Is every mistake concerning a voter’s identity automatically personation?
Answer:
No.
A mistake should not automatically be equated with the commission of a criminal offence.
The legal ingredients of personation must be established.
Q36. Does Section 174 expressly require the accused to receive money?
Answer:
No.
The punishment provision contains no such requirement.
Q37. Does Section 174 itself specify every form of conduct constituting personation?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording refers to the offence of personation but does not reproduce its detailed definition.
Q38. Must the accused be a candidate to commit personation?
Answer:
Section 174 does not impose such a requirement.
The legal ingredients of the underlying offence must be examined.
Q39. Is personation the same as undue influence?
Answer:
No.
They are distinct forms of electoral misconduct.
Undue influence concerns prohibited interference with electoral freedom.
Personation concerns fraudulent electoral participation involving identity.
Q40. Why does Section 174 prescribe a common punishment for both offences?
Answer:
The provision groups undue influence and personation together for punishment purposes.
Both are forms of electoral misconduct capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
The common punishment does not mean that their substantive ingredients are identical.
Part V — Difference Between Undue Influence and Personation
Q41. What is the main difference between undue influence and personation?
Answer:
Undue influence concerns improper interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.
Personation concerns fraudulent participation in an election through misuse or assumption of electoral identity.
Q42. Does undue influence necessarily involve pretending to be another person?
Answer:
No.
Personation and undue influence are distinct offences.
Pretending to be another person is not an inherent requirement of the general concept of undue influence.
Q43. Does personation necessarily involve threatening a voter?
Answer:
No.
Threatening a voter is not an inherent requirement of the general concept of personation.
Q44. Can the same factual incident raise questions involving both offences?
Answer:
Potentially, yes.
A complex factual incident may involve different forms of electoral misconduct.
However, the ingredients of each offence must be considered separately.
Q45. Does the word “or” in Section 174 mean that the two offences are interchangeable?
Answer:
No.
The word “or” means that either offence may attract the punishment provision.
It does not make the definitions identical.
Q46. What is the simplest examination distinction?
Answer:
UNDUE INFLUENCE = INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTORAL FREEDOM.
PERSONATION = FRAUDULENT ELECTORAL IDENTITY OR PARTICIPATION.
Part VI — Practical Illustrations
Q47. Illustration 1 — Improper pressure on a voter
Answer:
A applies improper pressure on voter B to influence the exercise of B’s electoral rights.
The facts may raise a question of undue influence at an election.
If the conduct satisfies the underlying statutory definition of undue influence, Section 174 supplies the punishment.
Q48. Illustration 2 — Threat connected with voting
Answer:
C threatens voter D in an attempt to interfere with D’s electoral choice.
The conduct may raise a question of undue influence.
Whether the offence is established depends on the applicable substantive ingredients.
Q49. Illustration 3 — Ordinary political persuasion
Answer:
E asks voter F to support a particular candidate and explains the candidate’s policies.
Ordinary political persuasion does not automatically amount to undue influence.
Q50. Illustration 4 — Political disagreement
Answer:
G and H disagree strongly about which candidate should win an election.
Their disagreement alone does not establish undue influence or personation.
Q51. Illustration 5 — Assuming another voter’s identity
Answer:
J attempts to participate in an election by pretending to be voter K.
The facts may raise a question of personation at an election.
If the substantive offence is established, Section 174 prescribes the punishment.
Q52. Illustration 6 — Identity mistake
Answer:
L is mistakenly identified as another voter because of an administrative error.
The mistake alone does not automatically establish criminal personation.
The substantive ingredients must be examined.
Q53. Illustration 7 — Candidate wins despite misconduct
Answer:
M commits conduct constituting undue influence at an election.
The candidate supported by M nevertheless loses.
The candidate’s defeat does not automatically prevent Section 174 from applying.
Q54. Illustration 8 — Candidate loses despite personation
Answer:
N commits conduct constituting personation at an election.
The candidate whom N wishes to support loses.
Section 174 does not expressly require the supported candidate to win.
Q55. Illustration 9 — No financial benefit
Answer:
P commits conduct constituting undue influence at an election but receives no payment.
The absence of personal financial gain does not automatically exclude Section 174.
Q56. Illustration 10 — No change in election result
Answer:
R commits conduct constituting personation at an election.
The final election result remains unchanged.
Section 174 does not itself expressly require proof that the result changed.
Q57. Illustration 11 — Accused is not a candidate
Answer:
S, who is not an election candidate, commits conduct constituting undue influence at an election.
Section 174 uses the word “whoever”.
It does not confine the punishment provision to candidates.
Q58. Illustration 12 — Accused is not an election official
Answer:
T, who holds no official election position, commits conduct constituting personation at an election.
The absence of official status does not automatically exclude Section 174.
Q59. Illustration 13 — Conduct unrelated to an election
Answer:
U behaves improperly during an ordinary private disagreement unrelated to any election.
Section 174 is not established merely because the conduct is improper.
The provision concerns undue influence or personation at an election.
Q60. Illustration 14 — Unsuccessful interference
Answer:
V engages in conduct intended to interfere improperly with W’s electoral freedom, but W remains unaffected.
Whether undue influence is established must be determined from the substantive statutory ingredients.
Section 174 itself does not state that the election result must change.
Q61. Illustration 15 — Both forms of misconduct alleged
Answer:
A is accused of improperly interfering with voters and separately engaging in fraudulent electoral personation.
The allegations must be analysed independently.
If either underlying offence is established, Section 174 may supply the applicable punishment.
Q62. Illustration 16 — Mere accusation
Answer:
B is publicly accused of personation at an election.
No evidence establishing the underlying offence is presented.
The accusation alone is insufficient to conclude that Section 174 has been violated.
Q63. Illustration 17 — Election-related criticism
Answer:
C publicly criticises the policies of candidate D.
Such criticism does not automatically establish undue influence or personation.
Q64. Illustration 18 — Punishment where undue influence is established
Answer:
E is found to have committed undue influence at an election.
Section 174 permits imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or fine, or both.
Q65. Illustration 19 — Punishment where personation is established
Answer:
F is found to have committed personation at an election.
The same punishment alternatives under Section 174 apply.
Q66. Illustration 20 — Fine without imprisonment
Answer:
G is convicted of an offence falling within Section 174.
The provision permits punishment by fine without imprisonment.
Q67. Illustration 21 — Imprisonment without fine
Answer:
H is convicted of an offence falling within Section 174.
The provision permits imprisonment of either description for a term up to one year without requiring a fine in every case.
Q68. Illustration 22 — Imprisonment and fine together
Answer:
J is convicted of an offence falling within Section 174.
The provision permits both imprisonment and fine.
Part VII — Punishment Under Section 174
Q69. What is the punishment under Section 174 BNS?
Answer:
Section 174 prescribes:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year.
Or fine.
Or both imprisonment and fine.
Q70. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
The maximum term is one year.
Q71. Does the section permit imprisonment of either description?
Answer:
Yes.
The statute expressly uses the words “imprisonment of either description”.
Q72. What is meant by imprisonment of either description?
Answer:
The expression refers to imprisonment of either legally recognised description, namely rigorous imprisonment or simple imprisonment.
Section 174 permits either description within the prescribed maximum term.
Q73. Is rigorous imprisonment permitted?
Answer:
Yes.
The phrase “imprisonment of either description” includes rigorous imprisonment.
Q74. Is simple imprisonment permitted?
Answer:
Yes.
The phrase also includes simple imprisonment.
Q75. Is imprisonment mandatory in every case?
Answer:
No.
The provision expressly permits fine as an alternative to imprisonment.
Q76. Can the court impose fine only?
Answer:
Yes.
Fine is an independent punishment alternative.
Q77. Can the court impose imprisonment only?
Answer:
Yes.
The section permits imprisonment as an alternative to fine.
Q78. Can the court impose both imprisonment and fine?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly permits both.
Q79. Is one year a mandatory minimum term?
Answer:
No.
The wording states that imprisonment may extend to one year.
One year is the maximum term stated in the provision, not a mandatory minimum.
Q80. Does the supplied text specify a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
No.
No mandatory minimum term is expressly stated.
Q81. Does Section 174 prescribe imprisonment for three years?
Answer:
No.
The maximum term specified is one year.
Q82. Does Section 174 prescribe imprisonment for seven years?
Answer:
No.
Seven years is not the punishment stated in Section 174.
Q83. Does Section 174 prescribe life imprisonment?
Answer:
No.
Life imprisonment is not prescribed.
Q84. What is the maximum amount of fine specified in Section 174?
Answer:
The supplied statutory wording does not specify a numerical maximum fine.
It simply provides for punishment with fine as one of the alternatives.
Q85. Is a fine of ₹5,000 expressly fixed under Section 174?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not prescribe that specific amount.
Q86. Is a fine of ₹10,000 expressly fixed under Section 174?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not prescribe that specific amount.
Q87. Is the punishment different for undue influence and personation under Section 174?
Answer:
No separate punishment is stated for each offence.
The same punishment clause applies to undue influence or personation at an election.
Q88. What is the most important punishment distinction?
Answer:
The provision gives three alternatives:
ONE YEAR OR FINE OR BOTH.
It does not require imprisonment and fine in every case.
Memory Formula:
UP TO ONE YEAR
OR
FINE
OR
BOTH
Part VIII — Classification of the Offence
Q89. Is Section 174 cognizable or non-cognizable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 174 is non-cognizable.
Classification: Non-Cognizable.
Q90. Is Section 174 bailable or non-bailable?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 174 is bailable.
Classification: Bailable.
Q91. Which court is competent to try an offence under Section 174?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, Section 174 is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Q92. What is the complete classification of Section 174?
Answer:
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
Q93. Is Section 174 triable by the Court of Session according to the supplied classification?
Answer:
No.
The supplied classification identifies a Magistrate of the First Class.
Q94. Does the bailable classification mean the conduct is not an offence?
Answer:
No.
Bailability concerns the procedural classification of the offence.
It does not remove the criminal character of the conduct.
Q95. Does non-cognizability mean the conduct is legally permitted?
Answer:
No.
Non-cognizability concerns procedural classification.
The conduct remains punishable where the offence is established.
Part IX — IPC Equivalent and Legislative Position
Q96. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 174 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, Section 174 BNS corresponds to Section 171-F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Memory Formula:
BNS 174 = IPC 171-F
Q97. Has the language of Section 174 changed from the corresponding IPC provision?
Answer:
According to the supplied commentary, the language remains unchanged.
Q98. Has the provision been retained as it was?
Answer:
Yes.
The supplied commentary states that the provision has been retained as it was.
Q99. Does the supplied commentary identify an increase in punishment?
Answer:
No.
The supplied commentary does not identify an increase in punishment.
It states that the language remains unchanged.
Q100. What is the most important historical comparison?
Answer:
Section 174 BNS corresponds to Section 171-F IPC.
The supplied commentary describes the provision as unchanged.
Part X — Comparison with Sections 175, 176 and 177 BNS
Q101. What is the difference between Section 174 and Section 175 BNS?
Answer:
Section 174 prescribes punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.
Section 175 concerns false factual statements relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate, made or published with the required knowledge or belief and intention to affect the election result.
Principal Difference
174 = Undue influence or personation.
175 = False factual statement about a candidate’s personal character or conduct.
Q102. Does Section 174 require a false factual statement about a candidate?
Answer:
No.
That is the subject of Section 175.
Section 174 concerns undue influence or personation.
Q103. Does Section 175 require undue influence or personation?
Answer:
No.
Section 175 has its own distinct statutory ingredients.
Q104. What is the difference between Section 174 and Section 176 BNS?
Answer:
Section 174 concerns punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.
Section 176 concerns election-promotional expenditure incurred or authorised without the candidate’s general or special written authority.
Principal Difference
174 = Undue influence or personation.
176 = Unauthorised election-promotional expenditure.
Q105. Does Section 174 contain the ₹10 proviso found in Section 176?
Answer:
No.
The ₹10 proviso concerning subsequent written approval of election expenditure belongs to Section 176.
Q106. What is the difference between Section 174 and Section 177 BNS?
Answer:
Section 174 prescribes punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.
Section 177 concerns failure to keep legally required accounts of election expenditure.
Principal Difference
174 = Undue influence or personation.
177 = Failure to keep election expenditure accounts.
Q107. Do Sections 174, 175, 176 and 177 have the same classification?
Answer:
According to the supplied classifications, all four offences are:
Non-cognizable.
Bailable.
Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Q108. Do Sections 174 and 175 have the same punishment?
Answer:
No.
Section 174 permits imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or fine, or both.
Section 175 prescribes fine only.
Q109. Do Sections 174 and 176 have the same punishment?
Answer:
No.
Section 174 permits imprisonment, fine or both.
Section 176 prescribes fine only under the supplied statutory wording.
Q110. Do Sections 174 and 177 have the same punishment?
Answer:
No.
Section 174 permits imprisonment, fine or both.
Section 177 prescribes fine only.
Q111. What is the easiest way to distinguish Sections 174 to 177?
Answer:
174 — UNDUE INFLUENCE OR PERSONATION AT AN ELECTION.
175 — FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT.
176 — UNAUTHORISED ELECTION-PROMOTIONAL EXPENDITURE.
177 — FAILURE TO KEEP ELECTION EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS.
Part XI — Examination-Oriented Analysis
Q112. What should be established first in a Section 174 problem question?
Answer:
The first question is whether the accused is alleged to have committed undue influence or personation at an election.
Q113. What should be established next?
Answer:
The next question is whether the facts satisfy the substantive ingredients of the particular underlying offence.
Section 174 does not itself reproduce those ingredients.
Q114. Why is it incorrect to begin and end an answer with the punishment alone?
Answer:
Because punishment becomes relevant only after the underlying offence is established.
A complete legal analysis must first identify the prohibited conduct.
Q115. What should be examined concerning the electoral context?
Answer:
It must be established that the alleged undue influence or personation occurred in connection with an election in the manner required by the underlying offence.
Q116. What should be stated concerning punishment?
Answer:
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term up to one year, or fine, or both.
Q117. What should be stated concerning classification?
Answer:
The offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, according to the supplied classification.
Q118. What should be stated concerning the IPC equivalent?
Answer:
Section 174 BNS corresponds to Section 171-F IPC, according to the supplied commentary.
Q119. What should not be invented when explaining Section 174?
Answer:
The detailed statutory ingredients of undue influence or personation should not be presented as though they appear in the supplied text of Section 174.
The section is a punishment provision.
Q120. What is the correct structure for an examination answer?
Answer:
A complete answer should identify:
First: The allegation of undue influence or personation.
Second: The applicable substantive definition of the underlying offence.
Third: The facts establishing the ingredients of that offence.
Fourth: The punishment under Section 174.
Fifth: The classification.
Sixth: The IPC equivalent.
Seventh: The distinction from Sections 175, 176 and 177 where relevant.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Section
Section 174 BNS.
2. Title
Punishment for Undue Influence or Personation at an Election.
3. Nature of Provision
Punishment provision.
4. First Underlying Offence
Undue influence at an election.
5. Second Underlying Offence
Personation at an election.
6. Relationship Between the Two Offences
Alternative.
7. Both Offences Required Together
No.
8. Electoral Context
Required.
9. Candidate Status of Accused
Not expressly required by Section 174.
10. Voter Status of Accused
Not expressly required by Section 174 itself.
11. Election Official Status
Not expressly required by Section 174.
12. Personal Financial Gain
Not expressly required by Section 174.
13. Actual Change in Election Result
Not expressly required by Section 174 itself.
14. Maximum Imprisonment
One year.
15. Description of Imprisonment
Either description.
16. Fine
Permitted.
17. Imprisonment and Fine Together
Permitted.
18. Mandatory Imprisonment
No.
19. Mandatory Minimum Term
Not specified.
20. Numerical Maximum Fine
Not stated in the supplied provision.
21. Cognizability
Non-cognizable.
22. Bailability
Bailable.
23. Trial Court
Magistrate of the First Class.
24. IPC Equivalent
Section 171-F IPC.
25. Legislative Commentary
Language unchanged; provision retained as it was.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 174 BNS.
Title: Punishment for Undue Influence or Personation at an Election.
IPC Equivalent: Section 171-F IPC.
Nature: Punishment provision.
Undue Influence Covered: Yes.
Personation Covered: Yes.
Both Offences Required Together: No.
Word Used: Or.
Underlying Offence Must Be Established: Yes.
Complete Definition Contained in Section 174: No.
Maximum Imprisonment: One year.
Rigorous Imprisonment Permitted: Yes.
Simple Imprisonment Permitted: Yes.
Fine Permitted: Yes.
Imprisonment Only Permitted: Yes.
Fine Only Permitted: Yes.
Imprisonment and Fine Together Permitted: Yes.
Mandatory Imprisonment: No.
Mandatory Minimum Term: Not specified.
Specific Maximum Fine in Supplied Text: Not stated.
Candidate Must Win Election: Not expressly required.
Election Result Must Change: Not expressly required by Section 174.
Personal Financial Gain Required: Not expressly required.
Cognizability: Non-cognizable.
Bailability: Bailable.
Trial Court: Magistrate of the First Class.
Language Changed from IPC: No, according to the supplied commentary.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 174 concerns bribery at an election.
Incorrect.
The supplied wording of Section 174 concerns undue influence or personation at an election.
Trap 2 — Both undue influence and personation must be committed together.
Incorrect.
The section uses “or”.
Trap 3 — Undue influence and personation are identical offences.
Incorrect.
They concern different forms of electoral misconduct.
Trap 4 — Section 174 itself provides the complete definition of undue influence.
Incorrect.
It is a punishment provision.
Trap 5 — Section 174 itself provides the complete definition of personation.
Incorrect.
It prescribes punishment rather than reproducing the full definition.
Trap 6 — Every political disagreement constitutes undue influence.
Incorrect.
The substantive ingredients of undue influence must be established.
Trap 7 — Every attempt to persuade a voter constitutes undue influence.
Incorrect.
Ordinary persuasion should not automatically be equated with the offence.
Trap 8 — Every identity mistake constitutes personation.
Incorrect.
The legal ingredients of personation must be established.
Trap 9 — Personation necessarily requires threatening a voter.
Incorrect.
Personation and undue influence are distinct concepts.
Trap 10 — Undue influence necessarily requires assuming another person’s identity.
Incorrect.
Identity misuse is associated with personation, not an inherent requirement of undue influence.
Trap 11 — The accused must be an election candidate.
Incorrect.
Section 174 uses the word “whoever”.
Trap 12 — The accused must be an election official.
Incorrect.
No such requirement appears in Section 174.
Trap 13 — The accused must obtain personal financial benefit.
Incorrect.
Section 174 does not expressly require personal financial gain.
Trap 14 — The supported candidate must win the election.
Incorrect.
Electoral victory is not expressly required by Section 174.
Trap 15 — The election result must actually change.
Incorrect.
Section 174 does not itself expressly impose that requirement.
Trap 16 — Section 174 prescribes imprisonment for three years.
Incorrect.
The maximum imprisonment is one year.
Trap 17 — Section 174 prescribes imprisonment for seven years.
Incorrect.
The maximum is one year.
Trap 18 — Section 174 prescribes life imprisonment.
Incorrect.
Life imprisonment is not prescribed.
Trap 19 — One year is the mandatory minimum imprisonment.
Incorrect.
One year is the maximum term stated.
Trap 20 — Only rigorous imprisonment is permitted.
Incorrect.
The section permits imprisonment of either description.
Trap 21 — Only simple imprisonment is permitted.
Incorrect.
Either description is permitted.
Trap 22 — Imprisonment is mandatory in every case.
Incorrect.
Fine is an alternative.
Trap 23 — Fine alone cannot be imposed.
Incorrect.
Fine alone is permitted.
Trap 24 — Imprisonment alone cannot be imposed.
Incorrect.
Imprisonment alone is permitted.
Trap 25 — Imprisonment and fine cannot be imposed together.
Incorrect.
The provision expressly permits both.
Trap 26 — Section 174 expressly fixes the maximum fine at ₹5,000.
Incorrect.
No numerical maximum fine appears in the supplied text.
Trap 27 — Section 174 expressly fixes the maximum fine at ₹10,000.
Incorrect.
No such figure appears in the supplied provision.
Trap 28 — Section 174 is cognizable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is non-cognizable.
Trap 29 — Section 174 is non-bailable.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is bailable.
Trap 30 — Section 174 is triable by the Court of Session.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification, it is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
Trap 31 — Section 174 corresponds to Section 171-G IPC.
Incorrect.
According to the supplied commentary, it corresponds to Section 171-F IPC.
Trap 32 — Section 174 and Section 175 have identical ingredients.
Incorrect.
Section 174 concerns undue influence or personation.
Section 175 concerns false factual statements about a candidate’s personal character or conduct.
Trap 33 — Section 174 and Section 176 have identical ingredients.
Incorrect.
Section 176 concerns unauthorised election-promotional expenditure.
Trap 34 — Section 174 and Section 177 have identical ingredients.
Incorrect.
Section 177 concerns failure to keep legally required election expenditure accounts.
Trap 35 — Section 174 contains the ₹10 proviso.
Incorrect.
That proviso belongs to Section 176.
Trap 36 — The supplied commentary states that Section 174 was completely rewritten.
Incorrect.
The commentary states that the language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it was.
Final Memory Formula
SECTION 174 — PUNISHMENT FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE OR PERSONATION AT AN ELECTION
UNDUE INFLUENCE AT AN ELECTION
OR
PERSONATION AT AN ELECTION
=
SECTION 174 BNS
UNDUE INFLUENCE
IMPROPER INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTORAL FREEDOM
PERSONATION
FRAUDULENT ELECTORAL IDENTITY OR PARTICIPATION
IMPORTANT
THE UNDERLYING OFFENCE MUST BE ESTABLISHED.
SECTION 174 IS THE PUNISHMENT PROVISION.
PUNISHMENT
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO ONE YEAR
OR
FINE
OR
BOTH
CLASSIFICATION
NON-COGNIZABLE
- ●
BAILABLE
- ●
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
IPC EQUIVALENT
SECTION 171-F IPC
COMPARISON
174 = UNDUE INFLUENCE OR PERSONATION
175 = FALSE FACTUAL STATEMENT ABOUT CANDIDATE
176 = UNAUTHORISED ELECTION-PROMOTIONAL EXPENDITURE
177 = FAILURE TO KEEP ELECTION EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS
Key Takeaway
Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prescribes punishment for the offences of undue influence and personation at an election.
The provision is primarily concerned with punishment rather than the detailed definition of the underlying offences.
Undue influence and personation are distinct forms of electoral misconduct.
Undue influence generally concerns improper interference with electoral freedom.
Personation generally concerns fraudulent electoral participation involving identity.
The word “or” is important.
The prosecution need not establish both offences together.
Commission of either underlying offence may attract Section 174.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to one year, or fine, or both.
The provision therefore permits imprisonment alone, fine alone or imprisonment and fine together.
No mandatory minimum imprisonment or numerical maximum fine is specified in the supplied wording.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
According to the supplied commentary, Section 174 corresponds to Section 171-F IPC, and its language remains unchanged.
Final Memory Line:
174 = UNDUE INFLUENCE OR PERSONATION AT AN ELECTION + UP TO ONE YEAR’S IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION OR FINE OR BOTH + NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS + IPC 171-F.
