- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 266: Violation of Condition of Remission of Punishment
Introduction
Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the situation where a person has been granted a conditional remission of punishment, accepts that benefit, and then knowingly violates the condition on which the remission was granted.
The section does not create a fresh substitute punishment. Instead, it restores the original punishment, wholly or partly, depending on how much of that punishment has already been undergone.
Basic Formula
Conditional remission accepted + condition knowingly violated = original punishment revived to the extent not already suffered
Q1. What does Section 266 provide?
Answer:
Section 266 applies where a person:
1. Has been sentenced to punishment;
2. Has accepted a conditional remission of that punishment;
3. Knowingly violates a condition attached to that remission.
If the person has not suffered any part of the original punishment, he may be made to undergo the whole original punishment.
If he has already suffered part of it, he may be made to undergo only the remaining part not yet suffered.
Q2. What is the object of Section 266?
Answer:
The object is to enforce the conditions on which remission of punishment is granted.
A person who accepts the benefit of conditional remission must comply with the attached conditions.
If he knowingly violates them, he cannot continue to enjoy the benefit of remission.
Core Principle
Conditional leniency must be accompanied by compliance.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 266 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 266 BNS = Section 227 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Q4. What is meant by “remission of punishment”?
Answer:
Remission means reduction or relaxation of the punishment that the person was otherwise required to undergo.
Section 266 is specifically concerned with:
Conditional remission
That means the benefit is granted subject to one or more conditions.
Q5. Is every remission covered by Section 266?
Answer:
No.
The section specifically refers to:
Conditional remission
Therefore, there must be a condition attached to the remission.
Q6. Must the person have accepted the conditional remission?
Answer:
Yes.
The section applies to whoever, having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates the condition.
Acceptance is therefore an important part of the provision.
Q7. Why is acceptance important?
Answer:
Because the person has obtained a legal benefit subject to stated terms.
Once the person accepts that benefit, he is expected to comply with those terms.
Memory
Accept benefit → accept condition
Q8. What are the essential ingredients of Section 266?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
1. There must have been an original sentence of punishment;
2. A remission of that punishment must have been granted;
3. The remission must have been conditional;
4. The person must have accepted the conditional remission;
5. The person must knowingly violate a condition;
6. The consequence is revival of the original punishment to the extent not already suffered.
Formula
ORIGINAL SENTENCE + CONDITIONAL REMISSION + ACCEPTANCE + KNOWING VIOLATION = SECTION 266
Q9. Is knowledge essential?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly uses the word:
“knowingly”
Therefore, accidental or unintended non-compliance would not automatically satisfy the provision.
Q10. Is negligence enough?
Answer:
No.
The wording requires knowing violation.
Mere carelessness is not the same as knowingly violating a condition.
Q11. Is intention expressly required apart from knowledge?
Answer:
The section expressly requires that the person knowingly violates the condition.
The central mental element is therefore knowledge of the violation.
Q12. Must the condition be one on which remission was granted?
Answer:
Yes.
The violated condition must be connected to the remission itself.
A breach of some unrelated obligation would not fall within Section 266 merely because the person was once granted remission.
Q13. What happens if the person has suffered no part of the original punishment?
Answer:
If the person has suffered no part of the original punishment, he may be punished with:
The punishment to which he was originally sentenced
Memory
Nothing suffered → whole original punishment
Q14. What happens if the person has already suffered part of the original punishment?
Answer:
If part of the punishment has already been undergone, the person may be required to undergo:
So much of the punishment as he has not already suffered
Memory
Part suffered → only the remainder
Q15. Does Section 266 impose a new maximum punishment?
Answer:
No.
The section links punishment directly to the original sentence.
Its consequence depends on:
- What the original punishment was; and
- How much of it has already been suffered.
Q16. Is the punishment under Section 266 always imprisonment?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The wording refers to the punishment to which the person was originally sentenced.
Therefore, the consequence tracks the original sentence.
Q17. Can the person be punished beyond the original sentence under Section 266?
Answer:
No.
The provision restores only:
- The original punishment; or
- The remaining part of it.
It does not authorise punishment exceeding the original sentence.
Q18. Why does the section distinguish between punishment already suffered and punishment not suffered?
Answer:
To prevent double punishment for the same portion of the original sentence.
If part has already been undergone, only the unsuffered balance remains.
Core Principle
No repetition of punishment already undergone.
Q19. Give an example where none of the original punishment has been suffered.
Answer:
Suppose A is sentenced to one year of imprisonment but receives a conditional remission before serving any part of the sentence.
A accepts the remission and later knowingly violates its condition.
Section 266 allows restoration of the original sentence of up to that one year.
Q20. Give an example where part of the punishment has already been suffered.
Answer:
Suppose A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and had already served four months before receiving a conditional remission of the remaining period.
If A knowingly violates the condition, he may be required to undergo the remaining eight months, not the full year again.
Q21. Does an accidental breach automatically revive the original punishment?
Answer:
No.
The section requires a knowing violation.
The prosecution must therefore establish the mental element required by the provision.
Q22. What if the person was unaware of the condition?
Answer:
If the person genuinely did not know of the condition, the requirement that he knowingly violates it may not be satisfied.
The facts would need to be examined carefully.
Q23. What if the person knew of the condition but did not know his conduct breached it?
Answer:
The key statutory question is whether he knowingly violated the condition.
If the violation was genuinely unknowing, the mental element may be absent.
Q24. Is motive relevant?
Answer:
No particular motive is expressly required.
The section does not demand proof of:
- Malice;
- Dishonesty;
- Fraud;
- Personal gain.
The key is knowing breach of the condition.
Q25. Must actual harm result from the violation?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording does not require any separate injury or loss.
The offence focuses on violation of the condition of remission.
Q26. Does the section require a fresh substantive offence to be committed?
Answer:
No.
A knowing breach of the condition itself is sufficient if the statutory requirements are met.
The person need not necessarily commit a separate criminal offence.
Q27. What is the classification of Section 266?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Cognizable
- Non-bailable
- Triable by the Court by which the original offence was triable
Memory
C + NB + Original Trial Court
Q28. Is Section 266 cognizable?
Answer:
Yes.
It is:
Cognizable
Q29. Is Section 266 bailable?
Answer:
No.
It is:
Non-bailable
Q30. Which Court tries an offence under Section 266?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
The Court by which the original offence was triable
This links jurisdiction directly to the original offence.
Q31. Why is the trial Court linked to the original offence?
Answer:
Because the consequence under Section 266 depends upon the original sentence.
The Court competent in relation to the original offence is therefore the natural forum to deal with the violation.
Q32. Is the language of Section 266 different from Section 227 IPC?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
No.
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Q33. What is the central legal idea behind Section 266?
Answer:
The central idea is:
Conditional remission is not absolute freedom from punishment
It is a benefit dependent on compliance with conditions.
If the person knowingly violates those conditions, the original punishment may revive.
Q34. Does Section 266 punish mere dissatisfaction with the condition?
Answer:
No.
A person may disagree with a condition, but liability arises from knowing violation, not from disagreement itself.
Q35. What is the easiest way to identify Section 266 in an exam question?
Answer:
Look for this sequence:
1. Original sentence;
2. Conditional remission;
3. Acceptance of remission;
4. Knowing breach;
5. Restoration of original punishment.
Memory Formula
SENTENCE → REMISSION → CONDITION → KNOWING BREACH → ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT REVIVES
Q36. What happens if only some conditions are violated?
Answer:
If the breached term is a condition on which remission was granted and the violation is knowing, Section 266 may apply.
The section does not require violation of every condition.
Q37. Is the offence complete merely because the remission condition became impossible to fulfil?
Answer:
Not automatically.
The section requires knowing violation.
The circumstances would need to show that the person's conduct amounted to a conscious breach.
Q38. Does Section 266 create a separate fixed punishment such as six months or two years?
Answer:
No.
Unlike many BNS provisions, Section 266 does not state a fixed maximum term.
Instead, punishment is tied to:
The original sentence
Q39. Why is this unusual?
Answer:
Because Section 266 is restorative rather than independently punitive in structure.
Its purpose is to withdraw the benefit of remission and restore the unserved punishment.
Q40. What is the difference between original punishment and remaining punishment?
Answer:
Original punishment
The entire sentence initially imposed.
Remaining punishment
The portion not yet undergone.
Memory
Original = whole
Remaining = balance
Q41. Does previous suffering of punishment get ignored?
Answer:
No.
The section expressly takes it into account.
If part has already been undergone, that part cannot simply be imposed again under Section 266.
Q42. Can Section 266 operate where remission was unconditional?
Answer:
No.
The section specifically requires:
Conditional remission
Without a condition, there can be no condition to violate.
Q43. Can Section 266 apply before the remission is accepted?
Answer:
The wording applies to a person having accepted conditional remission.
Therefore, acceptance is part of the statutory structure.
Q44. What is the relationship between benefit and responsibility under Section 266?
Answer:
The law grants the person relief from punishment subject to conditions.
The person must honour those conditions.
Memory
Benefit accepted = responsibility accepted
Q45. What is the shortest way to remember Section 266?
Answer:
“Break remission condition knowingly, serve the original balance.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Original Sentence Must Exist
Section 266 presupposes that the person has already been:
Sentenced to punishment
2. Conditional Remission
The punishment must have been remitted subject to:
A condition
3. Acceptance
The person must have:
Accepted the conditional remission
4. Mens Rea
The violation must be:
Knowing
Accidental breach is not enough.
5. Consequence Where Nothing Has Been Served
If no part of the original punishment has been suffered:
Whole original punishment revives
6. Consequence Where Part Has Been Served
If part has already been suffered:
Only the remaining part revives
Two Punishment Situations
Situation One — No Part Suffered
Original punishment = fully restored
Memory
0 served → 100% balance
Situation Two — Part Already Suffered
Only unsuffered remainder restored
Memory
Part served → balance only
IPC Equivalent
Section 266 BNS = Section 227 IPC
According to the supplied comments:
- Language unchanged;
- Provision retained as it is.
Classification Study Note
Section 266 is:
Cognizable
Non-bailable
Triable by the Court by which the original offence was triable
Quick Revision Notes
Section
266 BNS
Title
Violation of condition of remission of punishment
IPC Equivalent
227 IPC
Core Wrong
Knowingly violating a condition of accepted remission.
Remission Must Be
Conditional.
Acceptance Required?
Yes.
Mens Rea
Knowledge.
If No Punishment Already Suffered
Whole original sentence.
If Part Already Suffered
Remaining unsuffered portion only.
Classification
Cognizable + Non-bailable
Trial
Court by which original offence was triable.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Forgetting that remission must be conditional
Unconditional remission does not fit Section 266.
Trap 2 — Forgetting acceptance
The section applies to one who has accepted the conditional remission.
Trap 3 — Treating accidental breach as enough
Incorrect.
The violation must be:
Knowing
Trap 4 — Inventing a fixed sentence
Section 266 has no separate fixed maximum such as one year or two years.
The punishment depends on the original sentence.
Trap 5 — Reimposing punishment already suffered
Incorrect.
Only the unsuffered portion can remain where part has already been undergone.
Trap 6 — Assuming a new offence must be committed
Incorrect.
The core wrong is knowing violation of the remission condition.
Trap 7 — Forgetting jurisdiction
The offence is triable by:
The Court by which the original offence was triable
Trap 8 — Treating the offence as bailable
Incorrect.
According to the supplied classification:
Non-bailable
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 266
ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT
+
CONDITIONAL REMISSION
+
ACCEPTANCE
+
KNOWING VIOLATION
=
ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT REVIVES
If nothing served:
WHOLE SENTENCE
If part served:
REMAINING BALANCE
Shortest Memory Rule
“KNOWINGLY BREAK THE REMISSION CONDITION = SERVE WHAT REMAINS.”
Key Takeaway
Section 266 BNS applies where a person who has accepted a conditional remission of punishment knowingly violates the condition attached to that remission.
Its central consequence is simple:
NO PART OF ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT SERVED → WHOLE ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT
PART OF ORIGINAL PUNISHMENT SERVED → ONLY THE UNSERVED BALANCE
The section therefore ensures that conditional remission remains genuinely conditional and cannot be enjoyed after a knowing breach.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 266 BNS = Section 227 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
Rapid Revision
266 = CONDITIONAL REMISSION + ACCEPTANCE + KNOWING BREACH = ORIGINAL BALANCE REVIVES
Classification = Cognizable + Non-bailable
Trial = Court by which original offence was triable
