- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 239: Intentional Omission to Give Information of Offence by Person Bound to Inform
Introduction
Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who is legally bound to give information about an offence, knows or has reason to believe that the offence has been committed, and intentionally fails to give that information.
The section is therefore not aimed at every person who remains silent about an offence. Liability depends upon the existence of a legal duty to inform.
The central idea is:
ACTUAL OFFENCE + KNOWLEDGE/REASON TO BELIEVE + LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM + INTENTIONAL OMISSION = SECTION 239
⸻
Q1. What does Section 239 punish?
Answer:
Section 239 punishes a person who:
- Knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed;
- Is legally bound to give information respecting that offence; and
- Intentionally omits to give that information.
⸻
Q2. What is the object of Section 239?
Answer:
The object is to ensure that persons who are under a legal obligation to report information about an offence do not deliberately withhold it.
The section protects the administration of criminal justice by penalising intentional silence where the law imposes a duty to speak.
Core Principle
WHERE LAW REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN, DELIBERATE SILENCE MAY BE PUNISHABLE
⸻
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 239 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 239 BNS = Section 202 IPC
⸻
Q4. Has Section 239 changed under BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The substantive language remains unchanged;
- A maximum fine of ₹5,000 has now been fixed;
- Earlier, according to the supplied comments, there was no upper limit on the fine.
Memory
BNS CHANGE = FINE CEILING ₹5,000
⸻
Q5. Who can commit the offence?
Answer:
The section begins with:
“Whoever”
but liability is not truly universal.
The person must also be:
LEGALLY BOUND TO GIVE THE INFORMATION
This is the special limiting requirement.
⸻
Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 239?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- An offence has actually been committed;
- The accused knows or has reason to believe that it has been committed;
- The accused is legally bound to give information respecting that offence;
- The accused intentionally omits to give the information.
Formula
OFFENCE COMMITTED + KNOWLEDGE/REASON TO BELIEVE + LEGAL DUTY + INTENTIONAL OMISSION = 239
⸻
Q7. Must an offence actually have been committed?
Answer:
Yes.
According to the supplied comments, the prosecution must establish the corpus delicti, meaning the fact that the offence was actually committed.
Thus:
NO ACTUAL OFFENCE = NO SECTION 239 ON THIS BASIS
⸻
Q8. Why is the actual commission of an offence important?
Answer:
Because the section applies where the accused knows or has reason to believe:
“that an offence has been committed”
The offence is therefore built around failure to report an existing offence.
⸻
Q9. What is meant by “corpus delicti” in the supplied comments?
Answer:
In this context, it refers to proof that the underlying crime was in fact committed.
It is not enough merely to suspect that some offence might possibly have occurred.
⸻
Q10. What is the first mental element?
Answer:
The accused must:
KNOW
or
HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
that an offence has been committed.
⸻
Q11. Is direct personal knowledge always required?
Answer:
No.
The section also applies where the person has:
REASON TO BELIEVE
that the offence has been committed.
Thus, direct eyewitness knowledge is not essential.
⸻
Q12. What does “reason to believe” add?
Answer:
It extends the section beyond direct knowledge.
A person may have surrounding facts and circumstances giving him reason to believe that an offence has occurred.
⸻
Q13. What is the most important limiting ingredient in Section 239?
Answer:
The accused must be:
LEGALLY BOUND TO GIVE INFORMATION
This is the decisive distinction between Section 239 and Section 240.
⸻
Q14. Is every person who knows about an offence bound to report it under Section 239?
Answer:
No.
Mere knowledge of an offence is not enough.
The person must have a legal obligation to give the information.
Memory
KNOWLEDGE ALONE ≠ SECTION 239
⸻
Q15. What does “legally bound” mean?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the duty may arise under:
- Law;
- Statute; or
- A legally recognised professional duty.
The essential point is that the obligation must be legal, not merely moral.
⸻
Q16. Is a moral duty to report enough?
Answer:
No.
Section 239 requires a:
LEGAL DUTY
A moral expectation by itself is insufficient.
⸻
Q17. Is a social duty to report enough?
Answer:
No.
The obligation must be legally enforceable.
⸻
Q18. Can professional duty matter?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, yes, where that professional duty amounts to a legal obligation to provide the information.
The precise source of the legal duty must be established.
⸻
Q19. Must the legal duty exist at the time of omission?
Answer:
Yes.
The accused must be legally bound to give the relevant information when he intentionally fails to do so.
⸻
Q20. What is the prohibited act under Section 239?
Answer:
The prohibited conduct is:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
to give information.
This is an omission-based offence.
⸻
Q21. Why is “intentionally” important?
Answer:
Because accidental failure is not enough.
The person must deliberately omit to give the information despite being legally bound to do so.
⸻
Q22. Is negligence sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The section specifically requires:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
Mere forgetfulness, carelessness, or administrative lapse does not automatically satisfy the provision.
⸻
Q23. Is accidental delay sufficient?
Answer:
Not by itself.
The prosecution must establish deliberate omission, not merely delay caused by mistake or circumstances.
⸻
Q24. What if a person genuinely forgets to report the offence?
Answer:
Forgetfulness alone would not ordinarily satisfy the requirement of intentional omission.
⸻
Q25. Must the person intend to protect the offender?
Answer:
No.
Section 239 does not expressly require an intention to screen or protect the offender.
The required mental element is:
INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION WHICH THE PERSON IS LEGALLY BOUND TO GIVE
⸻
Q26. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly use:
“dishonestly”
⸻
Q27. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly use:
“fraudulently”
⸻
Q28. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not expressly stated as an ingredient.
⸻
Q29. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
A person need not receive money or benefit from the omission.
⸻
Q30. Is actual harm required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly require proof that the omission caused actual injury or loss.
⸻
Q31. Must the offender escape punishment because of the omission?
Answer:
No.
Actual success in helping the offender is not expressly required.
The offence focuses on the deliberate breach of the legal duty to inform.
⸻
Q32. Must the investigation actually be obstructed?
Answer:
No.
Actual obstruction is not expressly an ingredient.
⸻
Q33. What information must be omitted?
Answer:
The information must be:
INFORMATION RESPECTING THE OFFENCE
Thus, the omitted information must concern the offence that has been committed.
⸻
Q34. Is failure to report unrelated information covered?
Answer:
No.
The legal duty and the omitted information must relate to the offence concerned.
⸻
Q35. To whom must the information ordinarily be given?
Answer:
The supplied comments refer to informing the concerned authority or public servant.
The important point is that the accused must be under a legal duty to provide the information to the proper authority.
⸻
Q36. Is merely remaining silent enough in every situation?
Answer:
No.
Silence becomes punishable under Section 239 only where:
- The person knows or has reason to believe an offence was committed;
- He is legally bound to inform;
- He intentionally fails to do so.
⸻
Q37. Give a simple example.
Answer:
Suppose A is legally required to report a particular offence to the competent authority.
A knows that the offence has occurred but deliberately chooses not to report it.
Section 239 may apply.
⸻
Q38. Give an example where Section 239 would not apply.
Answer:
Suppose B hears about an offence but has no legal duty to report it.
B’s silence may raise moral concerns, but Section 239 does not apply merely because B failed to speak.
Core Distinction
NO LEGAL DUTY = NO SECTION 239
⸻
Q39. What if the accused honestly believes no offence occurred?
Answer:
Then the knowledge or reason-to-believe requirement may be absent.
Section 239 requires the accused to know or have reason to believe that an offence has been committed.
⸻
Q40. What if information about the offence is uncertain?
Answer:
The prosecution must still establish that the accused had the statutory level of awareness:
KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE
Mere vague suspicion is not automatically the same thing.
⸻
Q41. What if the person reports some information but deliberately withholds a legally required part?
Answer:
The question would be whether he has intentionally omitted information that he was legally bound to give.
Partial disclosure does not necessarily prevent liability if the omitted information itself falls within the legal duty.
⸻
Q42. Is giving false information the same offence as Section 239?
Answer:
No.
That is the key distinction between Sections 239 and 240.
Section 239
The person:
DOES NOT GIVE INFORMATION
despite a legal duty.
Section 240
The person:
GIVES FALSE INFORMATION
about the offence.
⸻
Q43. What is the simplest distinction between Sections 239 and 240?
Answer:
239 = SILENCE WHERE LAW REQUIRES SPEECH
240 = SPEAKING FALSELY ABOUT THE OFFENCE
⸻
Q44. Does Section 240 require a legal duty to inform?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments on Section 240, no.
This is a crucial contrast.
Section 239
LEGAL DUTY REQUIRED
Section 240
LEGAL DUTY NOT REQUIRED
⸻
Q45. Does Section 239 require false information?
Answer:
No.
The wrong is omission.
The accused does not provide information he is legally required to give.
⸻
Q46. Does Section 240 require omission?
Answer:
No.
The wrong there is an affirmative act:
GIVING FALSE INFORMATION
⸻
Q47. What is the punishment under Section 239?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description up to 6 months; or
- Fine up to ₹5,000; or
- Both.
⸻
Q48. What does “imprisonment of either description” mean?
Answer:
It means:
- Simple imprisonment; or
- Rigorous imprisonment.
⸻
Q49. What is the maximum imprisonment?
Answer:
6 months
⸻
Q50. What is the maximum fine?
Answer:
₹5,000
⸻
Q51. What is the classification under Section 239?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Any Magistrate
Memory
NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
⸻
Q52. Is Section 239 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
It is:
NON-COGNIZABLE
⸻
Q53. Is Section 239 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
It is:
BAILABLE
⸻
Q54. Which Court may try Section 239?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
⸻
Q55. What is the principal BNS punishment change?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, a maximum fine of:
₹5,000
has been fixed.
Earlier, there was no specified upper ceiling on the fine.
⸻
Q56. Does Section 239 share the Explanation appearing in Section 240?
Answer:
Yes.
The Explanation supplied under Section 240 expressly states that in:
Sections 238, 239 and 240
the word “offence” includes certain specified acts committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under the listed BNS provisions.
⸻
Q57. Why is that Explanation important for Section 239?
Answer:
It means that the underlying “offence” for purposes of Section 239 may include certain specified acts committed outside India.
However, only the acts corresponding to the BNS sections expressly listed in the Explanation are covered.
⸻
Q58. Does every foreign offence automatically count?
Answer:
No.
The Explanation is limited to the specified BNS offences.
Memory
FOREIGN ACT + SPECIFICALLY LISTED BNS PROVISION
⸻
Q59. How does Section 239 differ from Section 241?
Answer:
Section 239
Intentional omission to provide offence information despite legal duty.
Memory
FAIL TO REPORT
Section 241
Intentional concealment or destruction of documentary/electronic evidence.
Memory
DESTROY EVIDENCE
Core Distinction
239 = WITHHOLD INFORMATION
241 = SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
⸻
Q60. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 239?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was an offence actually committed?
- Did the accused know or have reason to believe it was committed?
- Was the accused legally bound to give information?
- Did the information concern that offence?
- Did the accused intentionally omit to provide it?
If yes, Section 239 becomes relevant.
⸻
Q61. What are the four essential words to remember?
Answer:
OFFENCE
KNOWLEDGE
DUTY
OMISSION
⸻
Q62. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“KNOW AN OFFENCE HAPPENED + LEGAL DUTY TO REPORT + DELIBERATELY STAY SILENT = 239.”
⸻
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Actual Offence Required
According to the supplied comments, the offence must actually have been committed.
This is expressed through the idea of:
CORPUS DELICTI
⸻
2. Knowledge Requirement
The accused must:
KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
that the offence has been committed.
⸻
3. Legal Duty
This is the defining ingredient:
LEGALLY BOUND TO GIVE INFORMATION
Without such legal obligation, Section 239 does not apply merely because the person remained silent.
⸻
4. Intentional Omission
The person must:
INTENTIONALLY OMIT
to provide the information.
Negligence or accidental failure is not enough.
⸻
5. Information Must Concern the Offence
The omitted information must be:
RESPECTING THAT OFFENCE
⸻
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
ACTUAL OFFENCE
+
KNOW / REASON TO BELIEVE
+
LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM
+
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
= SECTION 239
⸻
Section 239 vs Section 240 — Most Important Comparison
Section 239 — Omission
The accused is legally bound to give information but intentionally does not.
Formula
DUTY + SILENCE
⸻
Section 240 — False Information
The accused gives information respecting an offence knowing or believing it to be false.
According to the supplied comments, a legal duty to give information is not necessary.
Formula
NO DUTY REQUIRED + FALSE SPEECH
⸻
Ultra-Short Distinction
239 = SHOULD SPEAK BUT DOESN’T
240 = SPEAKS, BUT LIES
This is one of the easiest ways to remember the two provisions.
⸻
Punishment Notes
Section 239 provides:
UP TO 6 MONTHS
or:
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or:
BOTH
⸻
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
⸻
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
According to the supplied comments:
Section 239 BNS = Section 202 IPC
The substantive language remains unchanged.
The stated BNS change is:
MAXIMUM FINE FIXED AT ₹5,000
⸻
Quick Revision Notes
Section
239 BNS
Title
Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform
IPC Equivalent
Section 202 IPC
Underlying Requirement
An offence must have been committed.
Mental Element
Knowledge or reason to believe that the offence occurred.
Special Requirement
Accused must be legally bound to inform.
Act
Intentional omission to give information.
Mens Rea of Omission
Intentional, not merely negligent.
Punishment
Up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
Fine ceiling fixed at ₹5,000.
⸻
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking every witness to an offence must report it under Section 239
Incorrect.
The person must be:
LEGALLY BOUND TO INFORM
⸻
Trap 2 — Confusing moral duty with legal duty
Only legal obligation is relevant.
⸻
Trap 3 — Forgetting actual commission of the offence
According to the supplied comments:
CORPUS DELICTI MUST BE ESTABLISHED
⸻
Trap 4 — Forgetting the knowledge element
The accused must know or have reason to believe that the offence has been committed.
⸻
Trap 5 — Treating negligence as sufficient
Incorrect.
The omission must be:
INTENTIONAL
⸻
Trap 6 — Requiring intent to protect the offender
Not expressly required.
⸻
Trap 7 — Requiring actual obstruction of investigation
Not expressly required.
⸻
Trap 8 — Requiring actual escape of the offender
Not expressly required.
⸻
Trap 9 — Confusing Section 239 with Section 240
Remember:
239 = OMIT INFORMATION
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
⸻
Trap 10 — Forgetting that Section 239 requires legal duty but Section 240 does not
This is a major examination distinction.
239 = DUTY REQUIRED
240 = DUTY NOT REQUIRED
according to the supplied comments.
⸻
Trap 11 — Forgetting the common foreign-offence Explanation
The Explanation supplied under Section 240 applies to:
238 + 239 + 240
⸻
Trap 12 — Writing that all offences outside India are covered
Incorrect.
Only the specified acts corresponding to the enumerated BNS provisions fall within that Explanation.
⸻
Rapid Revision Chain: Sections 239–248
239 = OMIT INFORMATION
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
241 = DESTROY EVIDENCE
242 = FALSE PERSONATION
243 = HIDE PROPERTY
244 = FALSE PROPERTY CLAIM
245 = SUFFER FALSE DECREE
246 = FALSE COURT CLAIM
247 = OBTAIN FALSE DECREE
248 = FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGE
Expanded:
239 = LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM, BUT STAY SILENT
240 = KNOWINGLY GIVE FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT ACTUAL OFFENCE
241 = HIDE/DESTROY DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
242 = FALSE IDENTITY IN LEGAL PROCEEDING
243 = MOVE/HIDE PROPERTY TO BLOCK SEIZURE
244 = FALSELY CLAIM PROPERTY TO BLOCK SEIZURE
245 = ALLOW FALSE DECREE AGAINST SELF
246 = MAKE FALSE CLAIM IN COURT
247 = OBTAIN FALSE DECREE AGAINST ANOTHER
248 = MAKE FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGE
⸻
Best Memory Sequence
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
241 = DESTROY
242 = PERSONATE
243 = REMOVE
244 = CLAIM PROPERTY
245 = SUFFER DECREE
246 = FALSE CLAIM
247 = OBTAIN DECREE
248 = ACCUSE
⸻
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 239
AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED
+
ACCUSED KNOWS / HAS REASON TO BELIEVE
+
ACCUSED IS LEGALLY BOUND TO INFORM
+
INTENTIONALLY OMITS TO GIVE INFORMATION
= SECTION 239
⸻
Key Takeaway
Section 239 BNS is an omission-based offence. It does not punish silence by everyone who knows about a crime. It punishes deliberate silence by a person who is legally bound to give the information.
The essential structure is:
ACTUAL OFFENCE
+ KNOWLEDGE / REASON TO BELIEVE
+ LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM
+ INTENTIONAL OMISSION
The punishment is:
Up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both
The offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
According to the supplied comments:
Section 239 BNS = Section 202 IPC
and the stated BNS change is the fixing of the maximum fine at:
₹5,000
The most important comparison is:
239 = SHOULD SPEAK BUT DELIBERATELY DOESN’T
240 = SPEAKS BUT KNOWINGLY GIVES FALSE INFORMATION
Final Memory Line
“239 = ACTUAL OFFENCE + KNOWLEDGE + LEGAL DUTY TO INFORM + INTENTIONAL SILENCE.”
