Law

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 199: Public Servant Disobeying Direction Under Law

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 199: Public Servant Disobeying Direction Under Law

Introduction

Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes certain forms of deliberate disobedience by a public servant in the course of investigation and, in particular, failure to record information relating to specified cognizable offences.

The provision contains three distinct modes of liability:

Knowingly disobeying a legal direction that prohibits requiring a person’s attendance at a particular place for investigation;
Knowingly disobeying another legal direction regulating the manner of investigation, where prejudice is caused to a person; and
Failing to record information given under Section 173(1) BNSS relating to certain specified cognizable offences.

The section therefore protects lawful investigation procedure and also imposes a specific duty to record information concerning the listed offences.

Core Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + CLAUSE (a), (b), OR (c) VIOLATION = SECTION 199

More specifically:

199(a) = KNOWINGLY DISOBEY ATTENDANCE RESTRICTION

199(b) = KNOWINGLY DISOBEY INVESTIGATION RULE + PREJUDICE

199(c) = FAIL TO RECORD INFORMATION OF SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

⸻

Q1. What does Section 199 punish?

Answer:

Section 199 punishes a public servant who commits any one of the three forms of misconduct set out in clauses (a), (b), or (c).

The provision therefore creates alternative routes to liability.

⸻

Q2. Who can commit an offence under Section 199?

Answer:

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit this offence.

It is therefore a status-based offence.

⸻

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 199 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 199 BNS = Section 166A IPC

⸻

Q4. Has the substantive language changed?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED

except that, in clause (c), references to the old Code of Criminal Procedure have been replaced by the corresponding provisions of the BNSS.

⸻

Q5. What is the principal BNS update identified in the comments?

Answer:

The key update is:

CrPC REFERENCES → BNSS REFERENCES

particularly under clause (c).

The rest of the provision has been retained.

⸻

Q6. How many distinct clauses are contained in Section 199?

Answer:

Three:

CLAUSE (a)

CLAUSE (b)

CLAUSE (c)

Each covers a different kind of misconduct.

⸻

Q7. What does clause (a) cover?

Answer:

Clause (a) applies where a public servant:

Is subject to a direction of law;
That direction prohibits him from requiring the attendance of a person at any place;
The attendance would be for investigation into an offence or any other matter;
The public servant knowingly disobeys that direction.

Memory

199(a) = ILLEGAL ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT

⸻

Q8. What is the key mens rea in clause (a)?

Answer:

The public servant must:

KNOWINGLY DISOBEY

the direction of law.

⸻

Q9. Is accidental non-compliance enough under clause (a)?

Answer:

No.

The wording expressly requires:

KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE

⸻

Q10. What kind of legal direction is involved in clause (a)?

Answer:

A direction of law which:

PROHIBITS THE PUBLIC SERVANT FROM REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AT ANY PLACE

for purposes of investigation.

⸻

Q11. Is clause (a) limited only to criminal investigations?

Answer:

No.

The wording refers to investigation into:

AN OFFENCE OR ANY OTHER MATTER

So the clause is broader than offences alone.

⸻

Q12. What is the prohibited conduct under clause (a)?

Answer:

The public servant unlawfully requires a person to attend at a place when law prohibits him from making that requirement.

⸻

Q13. Must prejudice actually result under clause (a)?

Answer:

The supplied wording of clause (a) does not expressly require proof of prejudice.

The core elements are:

LEGAL PROHIBITION + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE

⸻

Q14. What does clause (b) cover?

Answer:

Clause (b) applies where a public servant:

Is governed by another direction of law regulating how an investigation must be conducted;
Knowingly disobeys that direction; and
The disobedience is:

TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANY PERSON

⸻

Q15. What is the key difference between clauses (a) and (b)?

Answer:

Clause (a) concerns:

UNLAWFUL REQUIREMENT OF ATTENDANCE

Clause (b) concerns:

OTHER LEGAL RULES REGULATING THE MANNER OF INVESTIGATION

⸻

Q16. What extra element is expressly required under clause (b)?

Answer:

The disobedience must be:

TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANY PERSON

This express prejudice requirement appears in clause (b).

⸻

Q17. Is mere technical breach enough under clause (b)?

Answer:

Not on the supplied wording alone.

There must be:

Knowing disobedience; and
Prejudice to a person.

⸻

Q18. What does “regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation” mean in context?

Answer:

It refers to legal directions governing how the public servant is required to conduct the investigation.

The section therefore penalises deliberate departure from legally prescribed investigative procedure where prejudice results.

⸻

Q19. Must the investigation concern an offence under clause (b)?

Answer:

Clause (b) refers back to:

“SUCH INVESTIGATION”

and should therefore be read in the context of clause (a), which refers to investigation into an offence or any other matter.

⸻

Q20. What does clause (c) cover?

Answer:

Clause (c) applies where a public servant:

Receives information under Section 173(1) BNSS;
The information relates to a cognizable offence punishable under one of the specifically listed BNS sections; and
The public servant fails to record that information.

Memory

199(c) = FAIL TO RECORD SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE INFORMATION

⸻

Q21. What procedural provision is expressly referred to in clause (c)?

Answer:

SECTION 173(1) BNSS

⸻

Q22. Must the offence be cognizable under clause (c)?

Answer:

Yes.

The clause expressly refers to:

COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

⸻

Q23. Does clause (c) apply to every cognizable offence?

Answer:

No.

It applies only where the cognizable offence is punishable under one of the specifically listed sections.

⸻

Q24. Which BNS sections are listed under clause (c)?

Answer:

The supplied text lists:

Section 64
Section 65
Section 66
Section 67
Section 68
Section 70
Section 71
Section 74
Section 76
Section 77
Section 79
Section 124
Section 143
Section 144

These section numbers should be memorised carefully.

⸻

Q25. What is the easiest way to remember clause (c)?

Answer:

SECTION 173(1) BNSS + SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE + FAILURE TO RECORD = 199(c)

⸻

Q26. Is knowledge expressly stated in clause (c)?

Answer:

Unlike clauses (a) and (b), clause (c) is framed as:

FAILS TO RECORD

and does not separately repeat the word “knowingly” in the supplied wording.

One should therefore avoid importing wording from clauses (a) and (b) into clause (c).

⸻

Q27. Why is this distinction important?

Answer:

Because each clause must be read according to its own statutory language.

Clause (a):

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS

Clause (b):

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS + PREJUDICE

Clause (c):

FAILS TO RECORD

⸻

Q28. Does clause (c) require proof of prejudice?

Answer:

No express prejudice requirement appears in clause (c).

The key statutory breach is failure to record the specified information.

⸻

Q29. Must the information be given under Section 173(1) BNSS?

Answer:

Yes.

The provision expressly ties clause (c) to:

SECTION 173(1) BNSS

⸻

Q30. Is Section 199 therefore partly procedural in nature?

Answer:

Yes.

It criminalises deliberate or specified violations of legal procedure governing investigation and recording of information.

⸻

Q31. What are the essential ingredients of clause (a)?

Answer:

Accused is a public servant;
There is a direction of law;
It prohibits requiring attendance at a place;
Attendance would be for investigation into an offence or other matter;
The public servant knowingly disobeys that direction.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL ATTENDANCE PROHIBITION + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE = 199(a)

⸻

Q32. What are the essential ingredients of clause (b)?

Answer:

Accused is a public servant;
There is another direction of law regulating the manner of investigation;
The public servant knowingly disobeys it;
The disobedience causes prejudice to a person.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + INVESTIGATION RULE + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE + PREJUDICE = 199(b)

⸻

Q33. What are the essential ingredients of clause (c)?

Answer:

Accused is a public servant;
Information is given under Section 173(1) BNSS;
It relates to a cognizable offence punishable under one of the listed BNS sections;
The public servant fails to record that information.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + 173(1) BNSS INFORMATION + LISTED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE + FAILURE TO RECORD = 199(c)

⸻

Q34. Must the public servant obtain any benefit?

Answer:

No.

Financial or personal benefit is not an express ingredient.

⸻

Q35. Must corruption be proved?

Answer:

No.

The offence is not dependent on proof of bribery or corrupt payment.

⸻

Q36. Must dishonesty be separately proved?

Answer:

No separate requirement of dishonesty appears in the supplied wording.

Clauses (a) and (b) expressly require knowing disobedience, while clause (c) focuses on failure to record.

⸻

Q37. Must wrongful gain be shown?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not an express ingredient.

⸻

Q38. Must wrongful loss be shown?

Answer:

No.

Clause (b) requires prejudice, but wrongful loss as such is not separately specified.

⸻

Q39. Must actual injury occur under clause (a)?

Answer:

No express injury requirement appears in clause (a).

⸻

Q40. Must actual prejudice occur under clause (b)?

Answer:

Yes.

The wording expressly states:

“TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANY PERSON”

⸻

Q41. Must prejudice occur under clause (c)?

Answer:

No express prejudice requirement appears in clause (c).

⸻

Q42. What is the punishment under Section 199?

Answer:

The punishment is:

RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

for a term:

NOT LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

and:

UP TO 2 YEARS

and the offender:

SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE TO FINE

⸻

Q43. Does Section 199 prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence?

Answer:

Yes.

The imprisonment:

SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

⸻

Q44. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

2 YEARS

⸻

Q45. Is the imprisonment simple or rigorous?

Answer:

The supplied wording expressly provides:

RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

⸻

Q46. Is fine optional?

Answer:

The wording states that the offender:

SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE TO FINE

Therefore, fine accompanies the imprisonment liability under the section.

⸻

Q47. Is a numerical maximum fine stated?

Answer:

No.

The supplied provision does not specify a numerical ceiling.

⸻

Q48. What is the classification of Section 199?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

⸻

Q49. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

199 = C + B + MFC

⸻

Q50. How does Section 199 differ from Section 200?

Answer:

Section 199

Deals with misconduct by a public servant concerning:

Attendance requirements;
Investigation procedure;
Failure to record specified information.

Section 200

Deals with:

PERSON IN CHARGE OF HOSPITAL CONTRAVENING SECTION 397 BNSS

Memory

199 = INVESTIGATION DUTY

200 = HOSPITAL TREATMENT DUTY

⸻

Q51. How does Section 199 differ from Section 201?

Answer:

Section 199

Deals with disobedience of legal directions in investigation or failure to record specified information.

Section 201

Deals with knowingly preparing or translating an incorrect official document or electronic record with intent or knowledge of likely injury.

Memory

199 = INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

201 = INCORRECT RECORD

⸻

Q52. Is Section 199 confined to police officers?

Answer:

The supplied wording refers generally to a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

It does not expressly limit the section to a particular designation.

However, liability still depends on whether the relevant legal duty applies to that public servant.

⸻

Q53. Is every breach of investigation procedure punishable under clause (b)?

Answer:

No.

The clause requires:

A direction of law;
Knowing disobedience; and
Prejudice to a person.

⸻

Q54. Is every failure to record information punishable under clause (c)?

Answer:

No.

Clause (c) specifically concerns information:

Given under Section 173(1) BNSS;
Relating to a cognizable offence;
Punishable under one of the listed BNS sections.

⸻

Q55. Why are the listed BNS sections important?

Answer:

Because clause (c) is not framed as a general offence covering every unrecorded cognizable complaint.

The statutory list limits the specific category covered by this clause.

⸻

Q56. What is the most important first question in a Section 199 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WHICH CLAUSE — (a), (b), OR (c) — IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

The ingredients differ materially.

⸻

Q57. What is the best way to analyse clause (a)?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Was there a legal direction prohibiting him from requiring attendance?
Was the attendance sought for investigation?
Did he knowingly disobey the prohibition?

⸻

Q58. What is the best way to analyse clause (b)?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Was there a legal direction regulating how the investigation had to be conducted?
Did he knowingly disobey it?
Was any person prejudiced?

⸻

Q59. What is the best way to analyse clause (c)?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Was information given under Section 173(1) BNSS?
Did it relate to a cognizable offence?
Was that offence punishable under one of the listed BNS sections?
Did the public servant fail to record the information?

⸻

Q60. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS

DIRECTION OF LAW

REQUIRING ATTENDANCE

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

PREJUDICE OF ANY PERSON

SECTION 173(1) BNSS

FAILS TO RECORD

COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

⸻

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Three Separate Modes

Section 199 contains:

(a) ILLEGAL ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT

(b) ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION METHOD CAUSING PREJUDICE

(c) FAILURE TO RECORD SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE INFORMATION

⸻

2. Clause (a) Mens Rea

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS

⸻

3. Clause (b) Mens Rea and Result

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS + PREJUDICE

⸻

4. Clause (c) Statutory Trigger

SECTION 173(1) BNSS + LISTED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

⸻

5. Clauses Must Not Be Mixed

Do not import the prejudice requirement from clause (b) into clause (c).

Do not assume the word “knowingly” is repeated in clause (c) when it is not in the supplied wording.

⸻

Clause-Wise Rapid Recall

199(a)

DON’T ILLEGALLY CALL THEM TO A PLACE

199(b)

DON’T ILLEGALLY CONDUCT INVESTIGATION TO THEIR PREJUDICE

199(c)

DON’T FAIL TO RECORD SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE INFORMATION

⸻

Punishment Notes

RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS

MAXIMUM 2 YEARS

+ LIABLE TO FINE

⸻

Classification Notes

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

Memory

199 = C + B + MFC

⸻

IPC Equivalent and BNS Change

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 199 BNS = SECTION 166A IPC

The substantive language remains unchanged.

The principal update is:

CrPC REFERENCES HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH CORRESPONDING BNSS REFERENCES

particularly in clause (c).

⸻

Section 199 vs Section 200

Section 199

PUBLIC SERVANT + INVESTIGATION / RECORDING DUTY

Section 200

HOSPITAL IN CHARGE + VICTIM TREATMENT DUTY

Best Memory

199 = INVESTIGATE PROPERLY

200 = TREAT PROPERLY

⸻

Section 199 vs Section 201

Section 199

DISOBEY INVESTIGATION LAW / FAIL TO RECORD

Section 201

KNOWINGLY CREATE INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

Best Memory

199 = PROCEDURE

201 = RECORD CONTENT

⸻

Quick Revision Notes

Section

199 BNS

Title

Public servant disobeying direction under law

IPC Equivalent

Section 166A IPC

Clause (a)

Knowingly disobeys legal prohibition on requiring attendance for investigation.

Clause (b)

Knowingly disobeys legal rule regulating investigation, causing prejudice.

Clause (c)

Fails to record information under Section 173(1) BNSS concerning specified cognizable offences.

Punishment

Rigorous imprisonment: minimum 6 months, maximum 2 years + fine

Classification

C + B + MFC

BNS Change

CrPC references replaced with corresponding BNSS references.

⸻

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Section 199 has only one type of offence

Incorrect.

It contains three separate clauses.

⸻

Trap 2 — Clause (a) requires prejudice

Not expressly.

The prejudice requirement appears in clause (b).

⸻

Trap 3 — Clause (b) does not require knowing disobedience

Incorrect.

It expressly requires:

KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS

⸻

Trap 4 — Clause (c) applies to every cognizable offence

Incorrect.

It applies only to the listed BNS offences.

⸻

Trap 5 — Clause (c) requires proof of prejudice

No such requirement appears in the supplied wording.

⸻

Trap 6 — Section 199 provides simple imprisonment

Incorrect.

The section expressly provides:

RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

⸻

Trap 7 — There is no minimum imprisonment

Incorrect.

MINIMUM = 6 MONTHS

⸻

Trap 8 — Fine has a stated numerical ceiling

Incorrect.

No numerical maximum is supplied.

⸻

Trap 9 — The provision is non-cognizable

Incorrect.

The supplied classification is:

COGNIZABLE

⸻

Trap 10 — The BNS materially rewrote the offence

According to the supplied comments, no.

The main change is the substitution of BNSS references for the former CrPC references.

⸻

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 199–207

199 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYS INVESTIGATION LAW / FAILS TO RECORD

200 = HOSPITAL NON-TREATMENT

201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES

203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB/TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

Memory Chain

INVESTIGATE → TREAT → RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK

⸻

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 199

Clause (a)

PUBLIC SERVANT + ATTENDANCE PROHIBITION + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE

Clause (b)

PUBLIC SERVANT + INVESTIGATION RULE + KNOWING DISOBEDIENCE + PREJUDICE

Clause (c)

PUBLIC SERVANT + SECTION 173(1) BNSS INFORMATION + LISTED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE + FAILURE TO RECORD

= SECTION 199

⸻

Punishment Memory

RI 6 MONTHS MINIMUM

UP TO 2 YEARS

+ FINE

Classification

C + B + MFC

⸻

Key Takeaway

Section 199 BNS creates three distinct offences by a public servant in the investigative process.

The easiest way to remember the provision is:

199(a) = ILLEGAL ATTENDANCE

199(b) = ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION + PREJUDICE

199(c) = FAILURE TO RECORD SPECIFIED INFORMATION

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 199 BNS = SECTION 166A IPC

The substantive offence remains unchanged, while the procedural references have been updated from the CrPC framework to the corresponding BNSS framework.

Final Memory Line

“199 = PUBLIC SERVANT MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF INVESTIGATION AND MUST RECORD THE SPECIFIED COGNIZABLE OFFENCE INFORMATION.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 200: Punishment for Non-Treatment of Victim

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 200: Punishment for Non-Treatment of Victim

Introduction

Section 200 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes the person in charge of a hospital who contravenes the requirements of Section 397 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The section expressly applies to both:

Public hospitals, and
Private hospitals.

It is deliberately broad regarding hospital management. A hospital may be run by:

The Central Government;
The State Government;
Local bodies; or
Any other person.

The central idea is therefore straightforward:

PERSON IN CHARGE OF HOSPITAL + CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS = SECTION 200 BNS

Section 200 itself provides the criminal punishment. The underlying duty whose breach attracts that punishment is contained in Section 397 BNSS.

Q1. What does Section 200 punish?

Answer:

Section 200 punishes a person who:

Is in charge of a hospital;
The hospital may be public or private;
The hospital may be run by the Central Government, State Government, local body, or any other person; and
The person contravenes the provisions of Section 397 BNSS.

Q2. What is the object of Section 200?

Answer:

The object is to ensure compliance by hospitals with the statutory duties imposed under Section 397 BNSS concerning treatment of victims.

The provision places criminal responsibility upon the person in charge where the statutory hospital obligation is violated.

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 200 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 200 BNS = Section 166B IPC

Q4. What is the central feature of Section 200?

Answer:

Section 200 is a consequence provision.

It does not, in the supplied wording, independently reproduce all the underlying treatment obligations.

Instead, it punishes:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

Therefore, Section 200 must be read together with Section 397 BNSS to determine the precise duty that has been breached.

Q5. Who can commit the offence under Section 200?

Answer:

The offender must be:

THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

This is therefore a status-based offence.

Q6. Is every employee of a hospital automatically liable under Section 200?

Answer:

Not merely because he or she works in the hospital.

The supplied wording specifically refers to:

WHOEVER, BEING IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

Thus, the prosecution must establish that the accused occupied the relevant position of being in charge.

Q7. Is Section 200 limited to Government hospitals?

Answer:

No.

The provision expressly covers:

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Q8. Does Section 200 apply to private hospitals?

Answer:

Yes.

Private hospitals are expressly included.

Q9. Does it apply to hospitals run by the Central Government?

Answer:

Yes.

The section expressly refers to hospitals run by:

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Q10. Does it apply to hospitals run by State Governments?

Answer:

Yes.

Hospitals run by:

THE STATE GOVERNMENT

are expressly included.

Q11. Does it apply to hospitals run by local bodies?

Answer:

Yes.

The provision specifically mentions:

LOCAL BODIES

Q12. Does it apply to hospitals run by persons other than Government bodies?

Answer:

Yes.

The provision additionally uses the broad expression:

“OR ANY OTHER PERSON”

This prevents the section from being restricted only to Government or municipal hospitals.

Q13. Why is the wording concerning hospital ownership so broad?

Answer:

It ensures that the statutory duty is not avoided merely because a hospital is privately owned or operated under a different institutional structure.

The section therefore focuses on:

THE HOSPITAL AND THE PERSON IN CHARGE

rather than merely on who owns it.

Q14. What is the prohibited conduct?

Answer:

The prohibited conduct is:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

Q15. Does Section 200 itself fully define what treatment must be provided?

Answer:

No.

The supplied text of Section 200 does not reproduce the detailed requirements of Section 397 BNSS.

Therefore, the exact underlying duty must be identified by reading:

SECTION 397 BNSS

Q16. Why is Section 397 BNSS important?

Answer:

Because Section 200 creates punishment for its contravention.

In other words:

SECTION 397 BNSS CREATES THE RELEVANT DUTY

while:

SECTION 200 BNS PROVIDES THE PENAL CONSEQUENCE

Q17. Can Section 200 be properly applied without identifying a breach of Section 397 BNSS?

Answer:

No.

Contravention of Section 397 BNSS is an essential ingredient.

The prosecution must therefore establish what Section 397 required and how that requirement was violated.

Q18. What are the essential ingredients of Section 200?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

There is a hospital;
It may be public or private;
The accused is in charge of that hospital;
Section 397 BNSS imposes the relevant obligation;
The accused contravenes that provision.

Formula

HOSPITAL + PERSON IN CHARGE + SECTION 397 BNSS DUTY + CONTRAVENTION = SECTION 200

Q19. Does ownership of the hospital determine liability?

Answer:

No.

The provision expressly covers hospitals run by a wide range of bodies and persons.

The key statutory question is whether the accused was:

IN CHARGE

and whether Section 397 BNSS was contravened.

Q20. Must the accused personally own the hospital?

Answer:

No.

Ownership is not an essential ingredient.

A person may be in charge of a hospital without owning it.

Q21. Must the hospital be public?

Answer:

No.

The phrase is expressly:

“PUBLIC OR PRIVATE”

Q22. Does the section distinguish between public and private hospitals in punishment?

Answer:

No.

The supplied provision prescribes the same punishment regardless of whether the hospital is public or private.

Q23. Is Government ownership a defence?

Answer:

No.

Government-run hospitals are expressly covered.

Q24. Is private ownership a defence?

Answer:

No.

Private hospitals are equally included.

Q25. Must the victim actually suffer further injury before Section 200 can apply?

Answer:

The supplied wording makes the offence depend upon:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

It does not separately state that additional injury must actually result before punishment can be imposed.

The precise elements of the underlying contravention, however, depend on Section 397 BNSS.

Q26. Must death result?

Answer:

No such requirement appears in the supplied wording of Section 200.

Q27. Must financial loss result?

Answer:

No.

Financial loss is not an express ingredient.

Q28. Must wrongful gain be proved?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not expressly required.

Q29. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not separately use the term “dishonestly.”

The offence is framed around:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

Q30. Must fraudulent intention be proved?

Answer:

No separate requirement of fraudulent intention appears in the supplied text.

Q31. Is the offence limited to deliberate refusal to treat?

Answer:

The precise scope of the underlying duty depends upon Section 397 BNSS.

Section 200 itself simply punishes a person in charge who:

CONTRAVENES SECTION 397 BNSS

Therefore, one should not add requirements beyond those contained in that provision.

Q32. Why is it important not to read additional ingredients into Section 200?

Answer:

Because Section 200 is expressly tied to another statutory provision.

Its application must therefore follow the actual requirements of:

SECTION 397 BNSS

rather than assumptions about what hospital treatment obligations ought to be.

Q33. What is the punishment under Section 200?

Answer:

The punishment is:

IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR

FINE

BOTH

Q34. What description of imprisonment is specified?

Answer:

The supplied wording simply states:

“IMPRISONMENT”

It does not, in the text provided, expressly say “simple imprisonment” or “imprisonment of either description.”

Therefore, the wording should be reproduced as supplied without inventing a description.

Q35. What is the maximum imprisonment?

Answer:

1 YEAR

Q36. Is there a mandatory minimum sentence?

Answer:

No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.

Q37. Is there a numerical maximum fine?

Answer:

No.

The supplied text states simply:

FINE

No numerical ceiling has been provided.

Q38. Can fine be imposed without imprisonment?

Answer:

Yes.

The punishment structure is:

IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH

Q39. What is the classification of Section 200?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

Q40. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

200 = NC + B + MFC

Q41. What is the best way to remember the offence?

Answer:

HOSPITAL IN CHARGE + BREACH OF SECTION 397 BNSS = SECTION 200

Q42. How does Section 200 differ from Section 201?

Answer:

Section 200

Deals with:

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY HOSPITAL TREATMENT DUTY

Section 201

Deals with:

PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWINGLY PREPARING OR TRANSLATING AN INCORRECT RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

Memory

200 = HOSPITAL TREATMENT

201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD

Q43. Is Section 200 restricted to public servants?

Answer:

No.

This is an important distinction from Sections 201–203.

Section 200 refers to:

WHOEVER, BEING IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

The hospital itself may be public or private.

Therefore, the accused need not necessarily be a public servant merely because Section 200 appears near offences concerning public servants.

Q44. Why is this an important exam point?

Answer:

Because neighbouring Sections 201, 202, and 203 expressly begin with:

“WHOEVER, BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT”

Section 200 does not.

Its special status requirement is instead:

“BEING IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL”

Q45. How does Section 200 differ structurally from Sections 201–203?

Answer:

Section 200

Special offender:

PERSON IN CHARGE OF HOSPITAL

Sections 201–203

Special offender:

PUBLIC SERVANT

This distinction should be remembered.

Q46. Does Section 200 create liability for every hospital employee?

Answer:

No.

The provision identifies the offender as the person:

IN CHARGE OF THE HOSPITAL

Q47. What must be established about the hospital itself?

Answer:

It must fall within the broad statutory category of a hospital, whether:

Public;
Private;
Central Government-run;
State Government-run;
Local-body-run; or
Run by any other person.

Q48. Is the institutional form of the hospital important to criminal liability?

Answer:

Not in the sense of excluding private or non-Government hospitals.

The statute deliberately covers all the listed categories.

Q49. Can a privately managed hospital fall within Section 200 even if it receives no Government funding?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not make Government funding a condition.

It expressly includes private hospitals and hospitals run by:

ANY OTHER PERSON

Q50. Does the section require that the hospital be operated for profit?

Answer:

No such requirement appears in the supplied wording.

Q51. What is the most important first question in a Section 200 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THE ACCUSED IN CHARGE OF THE HOSPITAL?

Q52. What is the second key question?

Answer:

Ask:

WHAT DID SECTION 397 BNSS REQUIRE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

Q53. What is the third key question?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THAT REQUIREMENT CONTRAVENED?

Q54. What is the best problem-question method?

Answer:

Proceed in this order:

Identify the hospital;
Determine whether the accused was in charge of it;
Identify the relevant obligation under Section 397 BNSS;
Determine whether that obligation was contravened;
If so, consider punishment under Section 200.

Problem Formula

STATUS → DUTY → CONTRAVENTION → PUNISHMENT

Q55. What statutory expressions should be memorised?

Answer:

BEING IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

STATE GOVERNMENT

LOCAL BODIES

ANY OTHER PERSON

CONTRAVENES SECTION 397 BNSS

Q56. What is the easiest substantive memory line?

Answer:

“200 = HOSPITAL IN CHARGE FAILS THE STATUTORY TREATMENT DUTY.”

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Special Offender

The offender must be:

A PERSON IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

Public-servant status is not stated as a separate requirement.

2. Public and Private Hospitals Covered

Section 200 expressly extends to:

PUBLIC HOSPITALS

and

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

3. Management Structure Does Not Exclude Liability

Hospitals run by:

Central Government;
State Government;
Local bodies;
Any other person;

are all covered.

4. Underlying Duty Comes from BNSS

The offence arises only upon:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

5. Section 200 Supplies the Punishment

The correct structural understanding is:

SECTION 397 BNSS = DUTY

SECTION 200 BNS = PUNISHMENT FOR BREACH

6. No Actual Further Injury Expressly Required by Section 200

The supplied wording focuses on contravention.

One must therefore examine Section 397 BNSS itself to identify the underlying requirements.

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

HOSPITAL

ACCUSED IN CHARGE

DUTY UNDER SECTION 397 BNSS

CONTRAVENTION

= SECTION 200 BNS

Punishment Notes

IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR

FINE

BOTH

Important

No numerical fine ceiling is supplied.

Classification Notes

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

Memory

200 = NC + B + MFC

IPC Equivalent and BNS Position

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 200 BNS = SECTION 166B IPC

The comments state that the provision has otherwise been retained, while references previously made to the Code of Criminal Procedure have been replaced by the corresponding BNSS references.

Important drafting note

The supplied comments mention:

“under clause (c)”

However, the text of Section 200 supplied here is not divided into clauses (a), (b), or (c).

This appears to be a cross-reference or drafting inconsistency in the supplied commentary. For study purposes, the safe point is:

THE OLD CrPC REFERENCES HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO THE CORRESPONDING BNSS REFERENCES

without treating “clause (c)” as a subdivision of the Section 200 text reproduced above.

Section 200 vs Section 201

Section 200

HOSPITAL DUTY / VICTIM TREATMENT

Special offender:

PERSON IN CHARGE OF HOSPITAL

Section 201

INCORRECT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT / ELECTRONIC RECORD

Special offender:

PUBLIC SERVANT

Best Memory

200 = HOSPITAL

201 = RECORD

Section 200 vs Sections 201–203

A useful sequence is:

Section 200

HOSPITAL IN CHARGE BREACHES TREATMENT DUTY

Section 201

PUBLIC SERVANT MAKES INCORRECT RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

Section 202

PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY ENGAGES IN TRADE

Section 203

PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS FOR PROPERTY

Memory

200 TREAT → 201 RECORD → 202 TRADE → 203 BUY

Quick Revision Notes

Section

200 BNS

Title

Punishment for non-treatment of victim

IPC Equivalent

Section 166B IPC

Who Can Commit It?

Person in charge of a hospital

Hospital Type

Public or private

Who May Run the Hospital?

Central Government
State Government
Local bodies
Any other person

Prohibited Conduct

Contravention of Section 397 BNSS

Underlying Duty

Contained in Section 397 BNSS

Punishment

Imprisonment up to 1 year / fine / both

Classification

NC + B + MFC

BNS Position

Corresponding procedural references updated from CrPC to BNSS; otherwise provision retained according to supplied comments.

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Only Government hospitals are covered

Incorrect.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS ARE BOTH INCLUDED

Trap 2 — Only doctors can commit Section 200

Incorrect as a statement of the supplied provision.

The statutory expression is:

PERSON IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL

Trap 3 — The accused must be a public servant

Incorrect.

Section 200 does not impose that express requirement.

A private hospital is specifically covered.

Trap 4 — Section 200 itself contains the entire treatment duty

Incorrect.

The underlying obligation is found in:

SECTION 397 BNSS

Trap 5 — Ownership of the hospital is essential

Incorrect.

The question is whether the accused was:

IN CHARGE

Trap 6 — Actual death must result

Incorrect.

No such requirement appears in the supplied Section 200 wording.

Trap 7 — Actual additional injury must always be proved

Section 200 itself is framed around:

CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 397 BNSS

The precise underlying requirements must be determined from Section 397.

Trap 8 — The hospital must be State-run

Incorrect.

The statute expressly includes:

ANY OTHER PERSON

Trap 9 — Section 200 provides simple imprisonment specifically

Do not add that wording.

The supplied text merely says:

IMPRISONMENT

Trap 10 — A numerical maximum fine can be stated

No.

No specific fine ceiling appears in the supplied provision.

Trap 11 — The reference to “clause (c)” necessarily describes Section 200 itself

Not on the text supplied.

The section reproduced has no clause (c). The commentary appears to contain a cross-reference or drafting inconsistency.

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 200–209

200 = NON-TREATMENT OF VICTIM

201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES

203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB/TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

Memory Chain

TREAT → RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 200

PERSON IN CHARGE OF HOSPITAL

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HOSPITAL

DUTY UNDER SECTION 397 BNSS

CONTRAVENTION

= SECTION 200

Punishment Memory

UP TO 1 YEAR

OR FINE

OR BOTH

Classification

NC + B + MFC

Key Takeaway

Section 200 BNS creates criminal punishment for the person in charge of a public or private hospital who contravenes Section 397 BNSS.

Its coverage is deliberately broad: the hospital may be run by the Central Government, State Government, local bodies, or any other person.

The most important structural point is:

SECTION 397 BNSS CREATES THE RELEVANT HOSPITAL DUTY

while:

SECTION 200 BNS PUNISHES ITS CONTRAVENTION

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 200 BNS = SECTION 166B IPC

The procedural statutory references have been updated from the old CrPC framework to the corresponding BNSS framework, while the provision has otherwise been retained.

Final Memory Line

“200 = PERSON IN CHARGE OF A HOSPITAL BREACHES THE STATUTORY VICTIM-TREATMENT DUTY.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 201: Public Servant Framing an Incorrect Document with Intent to Cause Injury

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 201: Public Servant Framing an Incorrect Document with Intent to Cause Injury

Introduction

Section 201 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a public servant who is officially entrusted with preparing or translating a document or electronic record, but knowingly or believingly prepares or translates it incorrectly, with the intention of causing injury or with knowledge that injury is likely to be caused.

The offence therefore combines three central ideas:

PUBLIC DUTY

KNOWINGLY INCORRECT RECORD

INTENDED OR LIKELY INJURY

The section is not aimed at innocent clerical mistakes or accidental mistranslations. The public servant must know or believe that the document or electronic record is incorrect, and there must also be the required intention or knowledge regarding injury.

Core Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + OFFICIAL DUTY TO PREPARE/TRANSLATE DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD + KNOWINGLY/BELIEVINGLY INCORRECT PREPARATION OR TRANSLATION + INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY = SECTION 201

Q1. What does Section 201 punish?

Answer:

Section 201 punishes a public servant who:

Is charged, in his official capacity, with preparing or translating a document or electronic record;
Frames, prepares, or translates it in a manner that he knows or believes to be incorrect;
Does so:

Intending thereby to cause injury to any person; or
Knowing that it is likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person.

Q2. What is the object of Section 201?

Answer:

The object is to protect the integrity of official documents and electronic records prepared or translated by public servants.

The section seeks to prevent public officers from deliberately corrupting official records in a way capable of causing injury to another person.

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 201 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 201 BNS = Section 167 IPC

Q4. Has the language changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED

and the provision has been:

RETAINED AS IT IS

Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 201?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

The accused must be a public servant;
As such public servant, he must be charged with preparation or translation of:

A document; or
An electronic record;

He frames, prepares, or translates it;
He does so in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect;
He acts:

Intending thereby to cause injury; or
Knowing it to be likely that injury may thereby be caused;

The injury may be caused to any person.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + OFFICIAL RECORD DUTY + INCORRECT RECORD + KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF + INTENT/LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY = SECTION 201

Q6. Who can commit this offence?

Answer:

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit Section 201.

It is therefore a special status-based offence.

Q7. Is public-servant status alone sufficient?

Answer:

No.

The public servant must also be officially:

CHARGED WITH THE PREPARATION OR TRANSLATION

of the relevant document or electronic record.

Q8. Why is the phrase “as such public servant” important?

Answer:

Because it connects the duty to prepare or translate the record directly with the accused’s official position.

The section does not apply merely because a public servant happens privately to prepare some document.

Q9. What kinds of material are covered?

Answer:

The section expressly covers:

DOCUMENTS

and

ELECTRONIC RECORDS

Q10. What acts are covered?

Answer:

The section expressly refers to:

FRAMES

PREPARES

TRANSLATES

Q11. Is preparation alone covered?

Answer:

Yes.

If a public servant prepares a document or electronic record incorrectly with the required mental elements, Section 201 may apply.

Q12. Is translation also covered?

Answer:

Yes.

The provision expressly includes incorrect translation.

Q13. Why is translation specifically mentioned?

Answer:

Because an incorrect official translation may alter the meaning, legal effect, or consequences of a document.

The law therefore treats deliberate mistranslation capable of causing injury as seriously as incorrect preparation.

Q14. Must the record be completely false?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

The section requires that it be prepared or translated:

IN A MANNER WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE INCORRECT

Therefore, even partial incorrectness may be relevant if the remaining ingredients are present.

Q15. Is an accidental clerical error enough?

Answer:

No.

The public servant must:

KNOW OR BELIEVE

that the manner in which the record is prepared or translated is incorrect.

Q16. Is mere negligence enough?

Answer:

Not on the supplied wording alone.

Negligence is not the statutory test.

The section requires knowledge or belief of incorrectness.

Q17. What are the mental states concerning incorrectness?

Answer:

There are two alternatives:

The public servant knows the document or translation is incorrect; or
The public servant believes it to be incorrect.

Memory

KNOWS OR BELIEVES INCORRECT

Q18. Is actual certainty required?

Answer:

No.

The statute covers both:

KNOWLEDGE

and

BELIEF

Q19. Is an honest mistake sufficient?

Answer:

No.

If the public servant genuinely believes the document or translation is correct, the required mental element may be absent.

Q20. What further mens rea is required concerning injury?

Answer:

The public servant must act:

Intending thereby to cause injury to any person; or
Knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury.

Q21. Are intention and knowledge cumulative?

Answer:

No.

They are alternatives.

Memory

INTENT TO INJURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY

Q22. Must actual injury occur?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording does not require that injury actually result.

The offence is based on:

INTENTION TO CAUSE INJURY

KNOWLEDGE THAT INJURY IS LIKELY

Q23. Why is actual injury not essential?

Answer:

Because the section criminalises the deliberate corruption of official records where injury is intended or known to be likely.

The dangerous official act itself is sufficient if the statutory mental elements are established.

Q24. Must the injured person be specifically named?

Answer:

No.

The provision refers broadly to:

ANY PERSON

Q25. Must the accused obtain personal benefit?

Answer:

No.

Personal gain is not an express ingredient.

Q26. Must there be wrongful gain?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not expressly required.

Q27. Must there be wrongful loss?

Answer:

No.

Actual wrongful loss is not required.

The key element is intended or likely injury.

Q28. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

The section does not separately require the word “dishonestly.”

The required mental elements are:

Knowledge or belief of incorrectness; and
Intention or knowledge concerning injury.

Q29. Must fraud be separately proved?

Answer:

No separate requirement of fraud appears in the supplied wording.

Q30. Must corruption be proved?

Answer:

No.

The offence does not depend on bribery or corrupt payment.

A public servant may commit Section 201 even without receiving any benefit.

Q31. Must the document be signed by the public servant?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly require signature.

The focus is on framing, preparing, or translating the record incorrectly.

Q32. Must the document be officially issued or used?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly require completed use or publication.

The offence focuses on the incorrect framing, preparation, or translation with the required mens rea.

Q33. Must another person rely on the document?

Answer:

No.

Actual reliance is not expressly required.

Q34. Must the incorrect document successfully cause an official decision?

Answer:

No.

The section does not require a successful downstream consequence.

Q35. What is the key distinction between mistake and offence under Section 201?

Answer:

The distinction lies in the mental element.

Mistake

The public servant prepares an incorrect record but genuinely believes it to be correct.

Section 201

The public servant:

KNOWS OR BELIEVES IT TO BE INCORRECT

and also:

INTENDS INJURY OR KNOWS INJURY IS LIKELY

Q36. What is the punishment under Section 201?

Answer:

The punishment is:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 YEARS

FINE

BOTH

Q37. What type of imprisonment may be imposed?

Answer:

The statute provides:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

Q38. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

3 YEARS

Q39. Is there a mandatory minimum term?

Answer:

No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.

Q40. Is a numerical maximum fine stated?

Answer:

No.

The supplied text states only:

“WITH FINE”

Therefore, no numerical fine ceiling should be invented.

Q41. What is the classification of Section 201?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

Q42. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

201 = C + B + MFC

Q43. How does Section 201 differ from Section 202?

Answer:

Section 201

A public servant deliberately frames, prepares, or translates an incorrect document or electronic record with intent or knowledge of likely injury.

Section 202

A public servant who is legally prohibited from engaging in trade nevertheless engages in trade.

Memory

201 = FALSE/INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD

202 = ILLEGAL TRADE

Q44. How does Section 201 differ from Section 203?

Answer:

Section 201

Deals with misuse of official record-making or translation duties.

Section 203

Deals with unlawful purchasing or bidding for property by a public servant legally prohibited from doing so.

Memory

201 = RECORD

203 = PROPERTY

Q45. How does Section 201 differ from Section 204?

Answer:

Section 201

The accused is genuinely a public servant and abuses an official record-related duty.

Section 204

The accused falsely pretends to be a public servant and acts or attempts to act under colour of office.

Memory

201 = REAL PUBLIC SERVANT, FALSE RECORD

204 = FAKE PUBLIC SERVANT, FALSE OFFICE

Q46. How does Section 201 compare with Section 256?

Answer:

Both concern incorrect official records, but they operate in different contexts.

From the supplied material already covered:

Section 201

Concerns a public servant charged with preparation or translation of a document or electronic record who knowingly or believingly makes it incorrect with intent or knowledge of likely injury.

Section 256

Concerns a public servant framing an incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture or other legal consequences.

Memory

201 = INCORRECT RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

256 = INCORRECT RECORD TO SAVE PERSON/PROPERTY

Q47. What is the critical difference between Sections 201 and 256?

Answer:

The purpose differs.

Section 201

CAUSE INJURY

Section 256

SAVE PERSON FROM PUNISHMENT / SAVE PROPERTY FROM LEGAL CONSEQUENCE

Q48. Is Section 201 limited to judicial records?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording does not confine the provision to Court or judicial documents.

It broadly applies where a public servant is officially charged with preparation or translation of a document or electronic record.

Q49. Is Section 201 limited to paper records?

Answer:

No.

It expressly includes:

ELECTRONIC RECORDS

Q50. Why is inclusion of electronic records important?

Answer:

Because official administration increasingly operates through digital records.

The provision applies equally to deliberate falsification in electronic form where the other ingredients are satisfied.

Q51. Can a deliberately incorrect translation alone attract Section 201?

Answer:

Yes.

The statute expressly includes:

TRANSLATES

Q52. Can a public servant commit Section 201 even if someone else ultimately signs the document?

Answer:

Potentially yes, because the supplied wording focuses on the person who frames, prepares, or translates the record.

Signature is not stated as a necessary ingredient.

Q53. What is the most important factual question in a Section 201 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THE PUBLIC SERVANT OFFICIALLY CHARGED WITH PREPARING OR TRANSLATING THIS DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD?

Without that official duty, Section 201 is not established.

Q54. What is the next important question?

Answer:

Ask:

DID THE PUBLIC SERVANT KNOW OR BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD WAS INCORRECT?

This separates deliberate wrongdoing from innocent error.

Q55. What is the third important question?

Answer:

Ask:

DID HE INTEND TO CAUSE INJURY OR KNOW THAT INJURY WAS LIKELY?

This is the injury-related mens rea.

Q56. What is the best problem-question method?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Was he officially charged with preparing or translating the document/electronic record?
Did he frame, prepare, or translate it?
Was it incorrect?
Did he know or believe it was incorrect?
Did he intend thereby to cause injury?
Alternatively, did he know injury was likely?

If all necessary elements are established:

SECTION 201 MAY APPLY

Q57. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT

CHARGED WITH PREPARATION OR TRANSLATION

DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

FRAMES, PREPARES OR TRANSLATES

KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE INCORRECT

INTENDING TO CAUSE INJURY

KNOWING INJURY TO BE LIKELY

Q58. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT + FALSE/INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD + KNOWLEDGE + INJURY INTENT = SECTION 201

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Special Offender

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit Section 201.

2. Official Duty Required

The public servant must be officially charged with:

PREPARATION OR TRANSLATION

of a document or electronic record.

3. Three Acts Covered

FRAME

PREPARE

TRANSLATE

4. Both Physical and Electronic Records Are Covered

DOCUMENT

and

ELECTRONIC RECORD

5. Incorrectness Must Be Conscious

The public servant must:

KNOW OR BELIEVE THE RECORD TO BE INCORRECT

6. Injury Mens Rea Is Also Required

The public servant must:

INTEND TO CAUSE INJURY

KNOW INJURY IS LIKELY

7. Actual Injury Is Not Expressly Required

The offence turns on the intended or likely consequence.

8. Innocent Mistake Is Not Enough

An accidental clerical or translation error does not, by itself, satisfy Section 201.

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

PUBLIC SERVANT

OFFICIAL DUTY TO PREPARE/TRANSLATE

DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

KNOWINGLY/BELIEVINGLY INCORRECT

INTENT TO INJURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY INJURY

= SECTION 201

Two-Layer Mens Rea

Section 201 is especially important because it contains two mental layers.

First Layer

The accused must:

KNOW OR BELIEVE THE RECORD IS INCORRECT

Second Layer

The accused must:

INTEND INJURY OR KNOW INJURY IS LIKELY

Memory

KNOW FALSE + INTEND HARM

Punishment Notes

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 YEARS

FINE

BOTH

No numerical maximum fine is supplied.

Classification Notes

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

Memory

201 = C + B + MFC

IPC Equivalent and BNS Position

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 201 BNS = SECTION 167 IPC

The language remains unchanged and:

THE PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED AS IT IS

Section 201 vs Section 202

Section 201

INCORRECT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT/E-RECORD

Section 202

UNLAWFUL TRADE BY PUBLIC SERVANT

Best Memory

201 = RECORD

202 = TRADE

Section 201 vs Section 256

Section 201

Incorrect record made:

TO CAUSE INJURY

or with knowledge injury is likely.

Section 256

Incorrect record made:

TO SAVE A PERSON FROM PUNISHMENT OR SAVE PROPERTY FROM LEGAL CONSEQUENCE

Best Memory

201 = HARM

256 = SAVE

Quick Revision Notes

Section

201 BNS

Title

Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury

IPC Equivalent

Section 167 IPC

Who Can Commit It?

Public servant

Official Duty

Must be charged with preparing or translating a document or electronic record.

Acts

Frames
Prepares
Translates

First Mens Rea

Knows or believes the record is incorrect.

Second Mens Rea

Intends to cause injury or knows injury is likely.

Actual Injury Required?

No express requirement.

Punishment

Either description up to 3 years / fine / both

Classification

C + B + MFC

BNS Change

None identified; provision retained as it is.

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Any incorrect official document amounts to Section 201

Incorrect.

The accused must know or believe it is incorrect.

Trap 2 — Negligence alone is enough

Incorrect.

The section requires conscious incorrectness.

Trap 3 — Injury must actually occur

Incorrect.

Intent to cause injury or knowledge of likely injury is sufficient.

Trap 4 — Only paper documents are covered

Incorrect.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARE EXPRESSLY INCLUDED

Trap 5 — Only preparation is covered

Incorrect.

The section covers:

FRAMING + PREPARING + TRANSLATING

Trap 6 — Any public servant can be liable irrespective of duty

Incorrect.

The accused must be charged, as public servant, with the relevant preparation or translation.

Trap 7 — Personal financial gain must be proved

Incorrect.

No gain requirement appears in the supplied wording.

Trap 8 — Actual reliance on the incorrect record is necessary

Incorrect.

No actual reliance is expressly required.

Trap 9 — Section 201 and Section 256 are identical

Incorrect.

201 = PURPOSE/LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY

256 = PURPOSE OF SAVING PERSON/PROPERTY FROM LEGAL CONSEQUENCE

Trap 10 — The BNS altered the substantive provision

According to the supplied comments:

NO — IT HAS BEEN RETAINED AS IT IS

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 201–209

201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD TO CAUSE INJURY

202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES

203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB/TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

Memory Chain

FALSE RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 201

PUBLIC SERVANT

OFFICIAL DUTY TO PREPARE OR TRANSLATE

DOCUMENT / ELECTRONIC RECORD

KNOWS OR BELIEVES IT IS INCORRECT

INTENDS INJURY OR KNOWS INJURY IS LIKELY

= SECTION 201

Punishment Memory

UP TO 3 YEARS

EITHER DESCRIPTION

OR FINE

OR BOTH

Classification

C + B + MFC

Key Takeaway

Section 201 BNS punishes a genuine public servant who is officially entrusted with preparing or translating a document or electronic record, but knowingly or believingly makes it incorrect with the intention of causing injury or with knowledge that injury is likely.

The section therefore requires two distinct mental elements:

KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF OF INCORRECTNESS

and

INTENT/KNOWLEDGE REGARDING INJURY

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 201 BNS = SECTION 167 IPC

and the provision has been retained unchanged.

Final Memory Line

“201 = PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWINGLY MAKES THE OFFICIAL RECORD WRONG SO THAT SOMEONE MAY BE INJURED.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 202: Public Servant Unlawfully Engaging in Trade

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 202: Public Servant Unlawfully Engaging in Trade

Introduction

Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with a public servant who is legally prohibited, by virtue of his office, from engaging in trade, but nevertheless engages in trade.

The offence is therefore not created merely because a public servant carries on some commercial activity. The key requirement is that the particular public servant must be legally bound, as such public servant, not to engage in trade.

The section is aimed at preventing conflicts between official duties and private commercial interests.

Core Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL PROHIBITION AGAINST TRADE + ENGAGES IN TRADE = SECTION 202

⸻

Q1. What does Section 202 punish?

Answer:

Section 202 punishes a person who:

Is a public servant;
Is legally bound, as such public servant, not to engage in trade; and
Nevertheless engages in trade.

⸻

Q2. What is the object of Section 202?

Answer:

The object is to prevent public servants from entering into commercial activities where the law requires them to remain free from private trading interests.

The section therefore protects against:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

and

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL INVOLVEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC DUTY

⸻

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 202 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 202 BNS = Section 168 IPC

⸻

Q4. Has the language of the provision changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED

The principal change is in punishment.

⸻

Q5. What punishment change has been made?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

COMMUNITY SERVICE HAS BEEN ADDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT

This is the principal BNS change identified.

⸻

Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 202?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

The accused is a public servant;
As such public servant, he is legally bound not to engage in trade;
He nevertheless engages in trade.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL DISQUALIFICATION FROM TRADE + TRADE = SECTION 202

⸻

Q7. Who can commit this offence?

Answer:

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit the offence.

It is therefore a special or status-based offence.

⸻

Q8. Is being a public servant alone sufficient?

Answer:

No.

The public servant must also be:

LEGALLY BOUND AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT NOT TO ENGAGE IN TRADE

This is an essential additional requirement.

⸻

Q9. Why is the phrase “as such public servant” important?

Answer:

It connects the legal prohibition directly with the person’s official status.

The restriction must arise because of his position as a public servant.

⸻

Q10. Is every public servant absolutely prohibited from trade under Section 202?

Answer:

No.

Section 202 does not create a universal rule that every public servant is prohibited from every form of trade.

The section applies where the particular public servant is:

LEGALLY BOUND NOT TO ENGAGE IN TRADE

⸻

Q11. Is a mere departmental preference enough?

Answer:

Not by itself.

The section requires a legal obligation not to engage in trade.

A purely informal suggestion or moral expectation would not satisfy the statutory wording.

⸻

Q12. What is the prohibited act?

Answer:

The prohibited act is:

ENGAGING IN TRADE

⸻

Q13. Must the public servant personally run a shop?

Answer:

Not necessarily as a matter of the supplied wording.

The section broadly uses the expression:

ENGAGES IN TRADE

The central issue is whether the public servant has in fact participated in trade despite being legally prohibited from doing so.

⸻

Q14. Must the trade be profitable?

Answer:

No.

Profit is not an express ingredient.

The offence concerns engagement in trade itself.

⸻

Q15. Must the public servant actually earn money?

Answer:

No.

Actual receipt of profit or income is not expressly required.

⸻

Q16. Must wrongful gain be proved?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not an express ingredient.

⸻

Q17. Must wrongful loss be proved?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful loss is also not an express ingredient.

⸻

Q18. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

No.

The section does not expressly require dishonesty.

The core issue is whether a legally prohibited public servant engages in trade.

⸻

Q19. Must fraudulent intention be proved?

Answer:

No.

Fraud is not expressly required.

⸻

Q20. Must corruption be proved?

Answer:

No.

Section 202 does not require proof of bribery, corruption, or misuse of office for financial gain.

The offence lies in engaging in trade contrary to a legal prohibition arising from public-servant status.

⸻

Q21. Must the trade relate to the public servant’s official department?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly require such a connection.

The essential question is whether the public servant is legally bound not to engage in trade and nevertheless does so.

⸻

Q22. Must the trade involve Government property?

Answer:

No.

There is no such requirement in the supplied wording.

⸻

Q23. Must Government suffer financial loss?

Answer:

No.

Actual Government loss is not an ingredient.

⸻

Q24. Must the public servant misuse his official powers?

Answer:

No separate misuse of power is expressly required.

The offence is complete when the legally prohibited public servant engages in trade.

⸻

Q25. Must the conduct interfere with official duties?

Answer:

Actual interference with official work is not expressly required.

The legal prohibition itself is sufficient, provided the accused engages in trade.

⸻

Q26. Is Section 202 therefore a preventive provision?

Answer:

Yes, in substance.

It prevents public servants from entering into trading activity where the law considers such participation incompatible with their official status.

⸻

Q27. What is the punishment under Section 202?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR

FINE

BOTH

COMMUNITY SERVICE

⸻

Q28. What type of imprisonment is prescribed?

Answer:

The section specifically provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

⸻

Q29. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

1 YEAR

⸻

Q30. Is there a mandatory minimum imprisonment?

Answer:

No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.

⸻

Q31. Is a numerical maximum fine given?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording states only:

“WITH FINE”

Therefore, no numerical fine ceiling should be invented.

⸻

Q32. Is community service mandatory?

Answer:

No.

It is provided as:

AN ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT

⸻

Q33. Why is community service important under the BNS?

Answer:

Because, according to the supplied comments, it represents the principal change from the IPC provision.

The section now expressly permits:

COMMUNITY SERVICE

as one of the sentencing alternatives.

⸻

Q34. What is the classification of Section 202?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

⸻

Q35. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

202 = NC + B + MFC

⸻

Q36. How does Section 202 differ from Section 203?

Answer:

This is an important neighbouring distinction.

Section 202

Deals with a public servant who is legally prohibited from:

ENGAGING IN TRADE

but does so.

Section 203

Deals with a public servant who is legally prohibited from:

PURCHASING OR BIDDING FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY

but does so.

Memory

202 = TRADE

203 = PROPERTY

⸻

Q37. What is the simplest distinction between Sections 202 and 203?

Answer:

202 = BUSINESS ACTIVITY

203 = PROPERTY ACQUISITION/BIDDING

⸻

Q38. Do both Sections 202 and 203 require the accused to be a public servant?

Answer:

Yes.

Both are status-based offences applying to a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

⸻

Q39. Do both sections require a legal prohibition arising from public office?

Answer:

Yes.

Both use the idea that the person is legally bound:

AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT

not to engage in the prohibited conduct.

⸻

Q40. How do their prohibited acts differ?

Answer:

Section 202

ENGAGE IN TRADE

Section 203

PURCHASE OR BID FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY

⸻

Q41. How do their punishments differ?

Answer:

Section 202

SI UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE

Section 203

SI UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH

and, if property is purchased:

CONFISCATION

⸻

Q42. Does Section 202 provide confiscation?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording of Section 202 does not provide for confiscation.

That consequence appears in Section 203 where prohibited property is actually purchased.

⸻

Q43. Does Section 202 require a particular item of property?

Answer:

No.

Its focus is broader:

ENGAGING IN TRADE

⸻

Q44. Is a single prohibited commercial transaction necessarily enough to amount to “engaging in trade”?

Answer:

That would depend on whether the conduct can properly be characterised as engaging in trade on the facts.

The supplied text does not define the expression further.

For study purposes, the important statutory requirement is:

ACTUAL ENGAGEMENT IN TRADE

⸻

Q45. Is mere intention to start a business sufficient?

Answer:

Not on the supplied wording alone.

The section says:

“ENGAGES IN TRADE”

Therefore, mere intention without engagement would not automatically satisfy the act requirement.

⸻

Q46. Is mere preparation enough?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

Again, the provision requires actual engagement in trade.

⸻

Q47. Must the trade be carried out in the public servant’s own name?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not specify a requirement that the trade be carried on in the public servant’s own name.

The central factual issue remains whether the public servant:

ENGAGES IN TRADE

⸻

Q48. Can indirect participation potentially become relevant?

Answer:

Potentially, depending on whether the facts establish that the public servant was truly engaging in trade.

The section focuses on the substance of engagement rather than merely the label placed on the activity.

⸻

Q49. Does Section 202 require actual sale of goods?

Answer:

The supplied text does not define trade by reference to a particular transaction.

The focus is broader engagement in trade.

⸻

Q50. What is the most important factual question in a Section 202 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THE ACCUSED, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN TRADE?

If not, Section 202 is not established.

⸻

Q51. What is the second important factual question?

Answer:

Ask:

DID THE PUBLIC SERVANT ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN TRADE DESPITE THAT PROHIBITION?

⸻

Q52. What is the best problem-question method?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Is he legally bound, in that capacity, not to engage in trade?
Did he nevertheless engage in trade?
If yes, what punishment options are available?

If the first three elements are established:

SECTION 202 MAY APPLY

⸻

Q53. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGALLY BOUND

AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT

NOT TO ENGAGE IN TRADE

ENGAGES IN TRADE

COMMUNITY SERVICE

⸻

Q54. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT + PROHIBITED FROM TRADE + TRADES ANYWAY = SECTION 202

⸻

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Special Offender

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit the offence.

⸻

2. Legal Prohibition Is Essential

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY BOUND NOT TO ENGAGE IN TRADE

⸻

3. Prohibition Must Arise from Official Status

The legal restriction must apply:

AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT

⸻

4. Prohibited Conduct

The accused must:

ENGAGE IN TRADE

⸻

5. No Express Requirement of Dishonesty

The section does not expressly use:

Dishonestly;
Fraudulently;
Maliciously.

The central issue is breach of the legal prohibition.

⸻

6. No Actual Loss Required

Actual loss to Government or any other person is not expressly required.

⸻

7. No Profit Requirement

The public servant need not actually make a profit for the statutory wording to be relevant.

⸻

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGAL DUTY NOT TO TRADE

ENGAGES IN TRADE

= SECTION 202

⸻

Punishment Notes

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR

FINE

BOTH

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Important

No numerical maximum fine was supplied.

⸻

Classification Notes

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

Memory

202 = NC + B + MFC

⸻

IPC Equivalent and BNS Change

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 202 BNS = SECTION 168 IPC

The language remains unchanged.

The identified BNS change is:

COMMUNITY SERVICE ADDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT

⸻

Section 202 vs Section 203

Section 202

PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES

Section 203

PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS OR BIDS FOR PROPERTY

Best Memory

202 = TRADE

203 = PROPERTY

⸻

Section 202 vs Section 204

Section 202

The accused actually:

IS A PUBLIC SERVANT

and violates a restriction on trade.

Section 204

The accused:

FALSELY PRETENDS TO BE A PUBLIC SERVANT

and acts or attempts to act under colour of office.

Best Memory

202 = REAL PUBLIC SERVANT, ILLEGAL TRADE

204 = FAKE PUBLIC SERVANT, FALSE OFFICIAL ACT

⸻

Quick Revision Notes

Section

202 BNS

Title

Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade

IPC Equivalent

Section 168 IPC

Who Can Commit It?

Public servant

Legal Requirement

Must be legally bound, as such public servant, not to engage in trade.

Act

Engages in trade

Dishonesty Required?

No express requirement.

Profit Required?

No express requirement.

Actual Loss Required?

No.

Punishment

SI up to 1 year / fine / both / community service

Classification

NC + B + MFC

BNS Change

Community service added as an alternate punishment

⸻

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Every public servant who does business commits Section 202

Incorrect.

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY BOUND NOT TO ENGAGE IN TRADE

⸻

Trap 2 — Private employment and trade are automatically identical

Do not assume so from the provision.

The statutory word is specifically:

TRADE

⸻

Trap 3 — Profit must be proved

Incorrect.

Actual profit is not an express ingredient.

⸻

Trap 4 — Corruption must be proved

Incorrect.

The section does not require proof of bribery or corruption.

⸻

Trap 5 — Wrongful gain or loss is necessary

Incorrect.

Neither is expressly required.

⸻

Trap 6 — Actual harm to Government must result

Incorrect.

The breach of the legal prohibition is central.

⸻

Trap 7 — Section 202 concerns buying particular property

Incorrect.

That is Section 203.

202 = TRADE

203 = PROPERTY

⸻

Trap 8 — Imprisonment can be rigorous

Not under the supplied wording.

The section expressly provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

⸻

Trap 9 — Community service existed under the corresponding IPC provision

According to the supplied comments, no.

It is the identified BNS addition.

⸻

Trap 10 — A specific maximum fine can be stated

Not from the supplied material.

The section says only:

FINE

No numerical ceiling has been supplied.

⸻

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 202–210

202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY TRADES

203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR GARB / CARRY TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

Memory Chain

TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT → WITHHOLD RECORD

⸻

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 202

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM TRADE

ENGAGES IN TRADE

= SECTION 202

⸻

Punishment Memory

SI UP TO 1 YEAR

OR FINE

OR BOTH

OR COMMUNITY SERVICE

Classification

NC + B + MFC

⸻

Key Takeaway

Section 202 BNS applies where a person is a genuine public servant, is legally bound in that official capacity not to engage in trade, but nevertheless engages in trade.

The key point is:

NOT EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT WHO TRADES COMMITS SECTION 202

The legal prohibition must first exist.

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 202 BNS = SECTION 168 IPC

The language remains unchanged, but the BNS introduces one important sentencing addition:

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Final Memory Line

“202 = A REAL PUBLIC SERVANT WHO IS LEGALLY FORBIDDEN TO TRADE, BUT TRADES ANYWAY.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 203: Public Servant Unlawfully Buying or Bidding for Property

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 203: Public Servant Unlawfully Buying or Bidding for Property

Introduction

Section 203 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with a public servant who is legally prohibited, by virtue of his office, from purchasing or bidding for certain property, but nevertheless purchases or bids for that property.

The section is designed to prevent conflicts of interest and misuse of official position in transactions involving property in which the public servant is legally disqualified from participating.

The prohibition is broad. It applies whether the public servant acts:

In his own name;
In the name of another person;
Jointly with another person; or
In shares with others.

If the property is actually purchased, the section additionally provides that:

THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Core Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL PROHIBITION ON BUYING/BIDDING FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY + PURCHASE OR BID DESPITE THAT PROHIBITION = SECTION 203

Q1. What does Section 203 punish?

Answer:

Section 203 punishes a public servant who:

Is legally bound, in his capacity as a public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property;
Nevertheless purchases or bids for that property;
Whether:

In his own name;
In the name of another;
Jointly; or
In shares with others.

If the property is purchased, it is also liable to confiscation under the section.

Q2. What is the object of Section 203?

Answer:

The section aims to prevent a public servant from participating in property transactions in which the law requires him to remain disinterested.

The concern is essentially one of:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

and

ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION

The law therefore prevents a public servant from bypassing the prohibition by using another person’s name or by acquiring only a share in the property.

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 203 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 203 BNS = Section 169 IPC

Q4. Has the language changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED

and the provision has been:

RETAINED AS IT IS

Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 203?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

The accused must be a public servant;
In that capacity, he must be legally bound not to purchase or bid for certain property;
He nevertheless purchases or bids for that property;
The purchase or bid may be:

In his own name;
In another person’s name;
Jointly;
In shares with others.

Formula

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL DISQUALIFICATION + PURCHASE/BID = SECTION 203

Q6. Who can commit the offence under Section 203?

Answer:

Only a person who is:

A PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit this offence.

It is therefore a status-based offence.

Q7. Why is the status of public servant essential?

Answer:

Because the legal prohibition must arise:

AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT

A private person who is not a public servant does not fall within Section 203 merely because he is prohibited from purchasing some property under another rule.

Q8. What is the second essential requirement?

Answer:

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY BOUND NOT TO PURCHASE OR BID

for the property.

Q9. Is a mere administrative preference enough?

Answer:

No.

The section requires a:

LEGAL BINDING PROHIBITION

A mere informal expectation or moral objection would not satisfy the wording.

Q10. Must the prohibition relate to specific property?

Answer:

Yes.

The section refers to:

CERTAIN PROPERTY

for which the public servant is legally prohibited from purchasing or bidding.

Q11. What acts are prohibited?

Answer:

Two principal acts are covered:

PURCHASING

BIDDING

Q12. Is actual purchase necessary?

Answer:

No.

A person may commit the offence merely by:

BIDDING

for the property, even if the bid does not result in purchase.

Q13. Why is bidding separately included?

Answer:

Because the law seeks to prevent the public servant from participating in the prohibited transaction at all.

The offence therefore arises at the stage of bidding and does not require completion of the sale.

Q14. Does Section 203 apply if the public servant buys in his own name?

Answer:

Yes.

This is the most direct form of the offence.

Q15. Can the public servant escape liability by using another person’s name?

Answer:

No.

The section expressly includes purchase or bidding:

IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER

Q16. Why is purchase in another person’s name expressly covered?

Answer:

To prevent indirect or proxy acquisition.

Without this language, a public servant could potentially attempt to circumvent the prohibition by arranging for another person to bid or purchase nominally on his behalf.

Q17. Is joint purchase covered?

Answer:

Yes.

The section expressly includes purchases or bids made:

JOINTLY

Q18. Is purchase of only a share in the property covered?

Answer:

Yes.

The section expressly includes purchasing or bidding:

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

Q19. Why is “in shares with others” important?

Answer:

Because even partial participation in the prohibited property transaction is covered.

The public servant cannot avoid the provision merely by acquiring a fractional interest rather than the whole property.

Q20. What are the four modes expressly covered?

Answer:

The public servant may purchase or bid:

In his own name
In the name of another
Jointly
In shares with others

Memory Formula

OWN NAME → OTHER NAME → JOINTLY → SHARES

Q21. Must the public servant actually obtain the property?

Answer:

No.

A bid alone may be sufficient.

However, if the property is actually purchased, an additional consequence follows:

CONFISCATION

Q22. What happens if the property is actually purchased?

Answer:

The section states:

THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Q23. Is confiscation discretionary under the supplied wording?

Answer:

The provision uses the word:

“SHALL”

Therefore, where the property is purchased, confiscation is framed as a mandatory statutory consequence.

Q24. Does confiscation apply if there was only an unsuccessful bid?

Answer:

No property would have been purchased in that situation.

The confiscation clause specifically applies:

IF PURCHASED

Q25. Is the offence complete upon prohibited bidding even if no sale occurs?

Answer:

Yes.

The section covers both:

PURCHASES OR BIDS

Therefore, successful acquisition is not necessary for criminal liability.

Q26. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

No.

The section does not expressly require dishonesty.

The core issue is the public servant’s participation in a transaction from which he is legally disqualified.

Q27. Must fraudulent intention be proved?

Answer:

No express requirement of fraudulent intention appears in the supplied wording.

Q28. Must corruption be separately proved?

Answer:

No.

The section is not framed as requiring proof of bribery or corruption.

The offence lies in violating the legal prohibition on purchasing or bidding.

Q29. Must wrongful gain be proved?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not expressly required.

Q30. Must wrongful loss be proved?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful loss is also not an express ingredient.

Q31. Must the property have been acquired below market value?

Answer:

No.

The price paid is not stated as an ingredient.

Even a fair-price purchase may fall within the section if the public servant was legally prohibited from participating.

Q32. Must the transaction be secret?

Answer:

No.

Secrecy is not an express ingredient.

The offence may arise even if the purchase or bid is openly made.

Q33. Must the public servant personally place the bid?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

The provision expressly covers conduct in:

THE NAME OF ANOTHER

Therefore, indirect participation is contemplated.

Q34. Must the legal prohibition exist because of the person’s office?

Answer:

Yes.

The wording states that the person must be:

LEGALLY BOUND AS SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT

not to purchase or bid for the property.

Q35. Why is the phrase “as such public servant” important?

Answer:

It links the prohibition directly to the accused’s official status.

The restriction must arise because of his position as a public servant.

Q36. Can Section 203 apply if the prohibition arises only from a private agreement?

Answer:

Not on the supplied wording alone.

The provision requires a legal prohibition applying to the person:

AS A PUBLIC SERVANT

Q37. What is the punishment under Section 203?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 2 YEARS

FINE

BOTH

and, where property has been purchased:

THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Q38. What type of imprisonment is provided?

Answer:

The section specifically provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Q39. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

2 YEARS

Q40. Is there a minimum term of imprisonment?

Answer:

No minimum term is supplied in the provision.

Q41. Is a numerical maximum fine stated?

Answer:

No.

The supplied text states only:

“WITH FINE”

No monetary ceiling is provided in the text supplied.

Q42. Can fine be imposed without imprisonment?

Answer:

Yes.

The punishment structure is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH

Q43. What is the classification of Section 203?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

Q44. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

203 = NC + B + MFC

Q45. How does Section 203 differ from Section 204?

Answer:

Section 203

A genuine public servant unlawfully purchases or bids for property he is legally prohibited from acquiring.

Section 204

A person falsely pretends to be a public servant or personates an office-holder and acts or attempts to act under colour of office.

Memory

203 = REAL PUBLIC SERVANT, PROHIBITED PROPERTY

204 = FAKE PUBLIC SERVANT, FALSE OFFICE

Q46. What is the key conceptual distinction between Sections 203 and 204?

Answer:

Section 203 begins with a person who actually is a public servant.

Section 204 begins with a person who falsely pretends to be one.

Memory

203 = REAL OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

204 = FALSE OFFICIAL IDENTITY

Q47. How does Section 203 differ from Section 220?

Answer:

Both deal with unlawful bidding or purchasing, but their focus differs.

Section 203

Applies to a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

who is legally prohibited, in that official capacity, from purchasing or bidding for certain property.

Section 220

Deals with a person who, at a sale held under lawful authority of a public servant:

Purchases or bids for a legally incapable buyer; or
Bids without intending to perform the obligations of the bid.

Memory

203 = DISQUALIFIED PUBLIC SERVANT

220 = DISQUALIFIED BUYER / SHAM BID

Q48. Is Section 203 limited to public auctions?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly confine the provision to an auction.

It refers generally to a public servant who is legally bound not to:

PURCHASE OR BID FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY

Q49. Does Section 203 require a sale under the authority of another public servant?

Answer:

No such requirement appears in the supplied text.

That kind of sale-related structure appears more specifically in Sections 219 and 220.

Q50. Can a public servant commit Section 203 through a proxy buyer?

Answer:

Yes.

The provision expressly covers purchase or bidding:

IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER

Q51. Can a public servant commit Section 203 through a partnership or group arrangement?

Answer:

Yes.

The statutory wording covers:

JOINTLY

and

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

Q52. Why is Section 203 drafted so broadly?

Answer:

To prevent easy circumvention of the prohibition.

Otherwise, a public servant could simply avoid direct acquisition by:

Using another person’s name;
Purchasing jointly;
Acquiring only a partial share.

Section 203 expressly closes these routes.

Q53. What is the most important question in a Section 203 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THE ACCUSED, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR BIDDING FOR THIS PROPERTY?

If the answer is no, Section 203 is not established on the supplied wording.

Q54. What is the second most important question?

Answer:

Ask:

DID THE PUBLIC SERVANT NEVERTHELESS PURCHASE OR BID, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?

Q55. What is the best problem-question method?

Answer:

Ask:

Is the accused a public servant?
Was he legally bound, as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for the property?
Did he purchase or bid for it?
Was the transaction:

In his own name;
In another’s name;
Jointly; or
In shares with others?

Was the property actually purchased?
If yes, confiscation follows under the provision.

Q56. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGALLY BOUND

NOT TO PURCHASE OR BID

CERTAIN PROPERTY

OWN NAME

NAME OF ANOTHER

JOINTLY

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

CONFISCATED

Q57. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

PUBLIC SERVANT + PROHIBITED PROPERTY + BUY OR BID = SECTION 203

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Special Offender

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit this offence.

2. Legal Disqualification

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY BOUND NOT TO PURCHASE OR BID

for the property.

3. Two Prohibited Acts

PURCHASE

BID

4. Direct and Indirect Transactions Are Covered

The transaction may be:

IN OWN NAME

IN ANOTHER’S NAME

JOINTLY

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

5. Successful Purchase Is Not Necessary for Criminal Liability

A prohibited:

BID ALONE

may be sufficient.

6. Confiscation Applies Where the Property Is Purchased

IF PURCHASED → PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

7. Mens Rea Language

Unlike several neighbouring provisions, Section 203 does not expressly use words such as:

Intentionally;
Dishonestly;
Fraudulently;
Maliciously.

The core statutory focus is the existence of the legal prohibition and the public servant’s purchase or bid despite it.

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGAL PROHIBITION AS PUBLIC SERVANT

PURCHASE OR BID

DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY

= SECTION 203

Modes of Acquisition — Rapid Recall

OWN NAME

OTHER PERSON’S NAME

JOINTLY

IN SHARES

Memory

OWN → OTHER → JOINT → SHARE

Punishment Notes

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 2 YEARS

FINE

BOTH

Additional Consequence

PROPERTY, IF PURCHASED, SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Classification Notes

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

Memory

203 = NC + B + MFC

IPC Equivalent and BNS Position

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 203 BNS = SECTION 169 IPC

The language remains unchanged and:

THE PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED AS IT IS

Section 203 vs Section 204

Section 203

REAL PUBLIC SERVANT MISUSES POSITION IN PROPERTY TRANSACTION

Section 204

NON-OFFICIAL FALSELY PERSONATES PUBLIC SERVANT

Best Memory

203 = REAL OFFICIAL

204 = FAKE OFFICIAL

Section 203 vs Section 220

Section 203

PUBLIC SERVANT HIMSELF IS LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED

Section 220

BID IS FOR LEGALLY INCAPABLE PERSON OR IS A SHAM BID

Best Memory

203 = DISQUALIFIED OFFICIAL

220 = DISQUALIFIED BUYER / SHAM BIDDER

Quick Revision Notes

Section

203 BNS

Title

Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property

IPC Equivalent

Section 169 IPC

Who Can Commit It?

Public servant

Legal Requirement

The public servant must be legally bound, as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for the property.

Act

Purchase or bid

Methods Covered

Own name
Another person’s name
Jointly
In shares with others

Successful Purchase Required?

No. A prohibited bid is sufficient.

Confiscation

If property is purchased:

PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Punishment

Simple imprisonment up to 2 years / fine / both

Classification

NC + B + MFC

BNS Change

None identified in supplied comments; provision retained as it is.

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Any person can commit Section 203

Incorrect.

Only a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

can commit it.

Trap 2 — Every property purchase by a public servant is prohibited

Incorrect.

The public servant must be legally bound not to purchase or bid for:

THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY

Trap 3 — Actual purchase is necessary

Incorrect.

BIDDING ALONE IS EXPRESSLY COVERED

Trap 4 — Proxy purchase avoids liability

Incorrect.

The section expressly covers purchase or bid:

IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER

Trap 5 — Joint ownership avoids liability

Incorrect.

The section expressly covers:

JOINTLY

Trap 6 — A small share is outside the provision

Incorrect.

The provision expressly covers:

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

Trap 7 — Dishonesty must be separately proved

Not according to the supplied wording.

The central statutory elements are public-servant status, legal prohibition, and purchase or bid.

Trap 8 — Confiscation applies even where the bid fails

The confiscation clause is stated for property:

IF PURCHASED

Trap 9 — Imprisonment may be rigorous

Incorrect under the supplied wording.

The section specifically states:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Trap 10 — Section 203 was materially altered by BNS

According to the supplied comments, no.

LANGUAGE UNCHANGED; PROVISION RETAINED AS IT IS

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 203–210

203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYS/BIDS

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB/TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

Memory Chain

BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT → WITHHOLD RECORD

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 203

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED FROM BUYING/BIDDING

BUYS OR BIDS ANYWAY

OWN NAME / OTHER NAME / JOINTLY / SHARES

= SECTION 203

Punishment Memory

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 2 YEARS

OR FINE

OR BOTH

AND IF PURCHASED

PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

Classification

NC + B + MFC

Key Takeaway

Section 203 BNS applies where a genuine public servant is legally prohibited, by virtue of his office, from purchasing or bidding for particular property but nevertheless participates in the transaction.

The prohibition cannot be avoided by indirect methods, because the section expressly covers:

OWN NAME

ANOTHER PERSON’S NAME

JOINTLY

IN SHARES WITH OTHERS

Actual purchase is not necessary for criminal liability because a prohibited bid is itself covered. However, where the property is actually purchased:

THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONFISCATED

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 203 BNS = SECTION 169 IPC

and the provision has been retained unchanged.

Final Memory Line

“203 = A REAL PUBLIC SERVANT BUYS OR BIDS FOR PROPERTY THE LAW FORBIDS HIM TO TOUCH.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 204: Personating a Public Servant

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 204: Personating a Public Servant

Introduction

Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who falsely assumes the identity or office of a public servant and then, in that assumed character, does or attempts to do an act under colour of that office.

The section therefore requires more than merely claiming to be a public servant. The false assumption of office must be followed by some act, or attempted act, performed under the authority or appearance of that supposed office.

Section 204 covers two broad situations:

A person pretends to hold a particular public office, knowing that he does not hold it; or
A person falsely personates another individual who actually holds that public office.

The provision is significantly more serious than Section 205, because Section 204 involves actual personation plus action or attempted action under colour of office, whereas Section 205 is concerned with deceptive use of garb or token.

Core Formula

FALSE PUBLIC OFFICE / FALSE PERSONATION + KNOWLEDGE OF FALSEHOOD + ACT OR ATTEMPT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE = SECTION 204

Q1. What does Section 204 punish?

Answer:

Section 204 punishes a person who:

Pretends to hold a particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold that office; or
Falsely personates another person who holds that office; and
In that assumed character:

Does an act; or
Attempts to do an act;

Under colour of that office.

Q2. What is the object of Section 204?

Answer:

The object is to protect the integrity and authority of public offices.

A person who falsely assumes public authority may mislead citizens, interfere with administration, or exercise apparent powers which he does not lawfully possess.

Section 204 therefore criminalises not merely false representation, but false assumption of public office followed by conduct under the appearance of that office.

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 204 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 204 BNS = Section 170 IPC

Q4. Has the operating part of the offence changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

THE OPERATING PART HAS BEEN RETAINED

The principal change concerns punishment.

Q5. What punishment change has been made under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the former punishment of:

UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH

has been replaced by a stricter punishment of:

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS TO MAXIMUM 3 YEARS + FINE

Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 204?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

The accused pretends to hold a particular office as a public servant; or
The accused falsely personates another person holding such office;
The accused knows that he does not hold that office, where he merely pretends to hold it;
In the assumed character, the accused:

Does an act; or
Attempts to do an act;

The act or attempt is done under colour of that office.

Formula

FALSE OFFICE / FALSE IDENTITY + KNOWLEDGE + ASSUMED CHARACTER + ACT/ATTEMPT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE = SECTION 204

Q7. What is the first mode of committing the offence?

Answer:

The first mode is where a person:

PRETENDS TO HOLD A PARTICULAR OFFICE AS A PUBLIC SERVANT

while knowing that he does not actually hold that office.

Q8. What is the second mode of committing the offence?

Answer:

The second mode is where a person:

FALSELY PERSONATES ANOTHER PERSON HOLDING SUCH OFFICE

This means the accused assumes the identity of an actual office-holder.

Q9. What is the difference between these two modes?

Answer:

The distinction is:

MODE 1 = FALSELY CLAIM THE OFFICE

whereas:

MODE 2 = FALSELY CLAIM TO BE THE PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HOLDS THE OFFICE

Q10. Must the office be a public office?

Answer:

Yes.

The section concerns an office held:

AS A PUBLIC SERVANT

Q11. Is pretending to hold a private-sector job covered by Section 204?

Answer:

Not under the supplied wording of this provision.

Section 204 specifically concerns personation of a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

Q12. What mental element is required in the first mode?

Answer:

The person must know:

THAT HE DOES NOT HOLD SUCH OFFICE

This knowledge is expressly stated in the provision.

Q13. Is an honest mistake enough?

Answer:

No.

If a person genuinely believes he lawfully holds the office, the express requirement of knowledge that he does not hold the office may be absent.

Q14. Is mere boasting that one is a public servant enough?

Answer:

Not by itself.

Section 204 requires more.

The person must, in the assumed character:

DO OR ATTEMPT TO DO AN ACT UNDER COLOUR OF SUCH OFFICE

Q15. Why is the act or attempted act important?

Answer:

Because the section does not punish mere false representation alone.

The false representation must move into conduct.

Memory

FALSE CLAIM + OFFICIAL-TYPE ACT = SECTION 204

Q16. Is a completed act necessary?

Answer:

No.

The section expressly covers:

DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO DO

Therefore, an attempt is sufficient if the other ingredients are present.

Q17. What does “under colour of such office” mean in the context of the section?

Answer:

It means that the accused acts or attempts to act under the appearance, authority, or supposed power of the falsely assumed office.

The conduct must therefore be linked to the false official character.

Q18. Is any unrelated act enough after falsely claiming to be a public servant?

Answer:

No.

The act or attempted act must be:

UNDER COLOUR OF SUCH OFFICE

An unrelated private act would not satisfy this specific requirement merely because the person had earlier lied about being a public servant.

Q19. Must the accused actually possess official power?

Answer:

No.

The whole point of the section is that the accused does not lawfully possess the office or identity being assumed.

Q20. Must another person actually believe the impersonation?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly require proof that another person was actually deceived.

The key requirements are false assumption of office or identity and an act or attempt under colour of that office.

Q21. Must the accused obtain money or property?

Answer:

No.

Financial gain is not an essential ingredient.

Q22. Must there be wrongful gain?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful gain is not expressly required.

Q23. Must there be wrongful loss?

Answer:

No.

Wrongful loss is not expressly required.

Q24. Must the accused act dishonestly?

Answer:

The section does not separately use “dishonestly” as an ingredient.

The statutory mental element is tied to:

Knowledge that the accused does not hold the office; and
The false assumption of official character.

Q25. Must fraud be separately proved?

Answer:

No separate requirement of fraud appears in the supplied wording.

The offence rests on false personation combined with official-type conduct.

Q26. Must the false public office actually exist?

Answer:

The section refers to:

“ANY PARTICULAR OFFICE AS A PUBLIC SERVANT”

The offence therefore concerns a particular public office that the accused falsely claims or personates.

Q27. Must the accused identify a specific individual in every case?

Answer:

No.

There are two alternative modes.

In the first mode, the accused merely pretends to hold a particular office.

In the second mode, the accused falsely personates another person who holds the office.

Q28. Is impersonating a specific office-holder more than merely claiming the office?

Answer:

Yes.

It involves assuming the identity of the actual individual holding that office.

Q29. Is wearing a public-servant uniform enough for Section 204?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

Mere wearing of garb or carrying a token is more directly addressed by Section 205.

For Section 204, there must also be:

PERSONATION OR FALSE ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE + ACT/ATTEMPT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE

Q30. Can clothing be evidence relevant to Section 204?

Answer:

Potentially, yes.

Garb may support the inference that a person assumed an official character, but the essential Section 204 requirement remains:

FALSE OFFICE/PERSONATION + OFFICIAL-TYPE ACT OR ATTEMPT

Q31. Is Section 204 more serious than Section 205?

Answer:

Yes.

The supplied punishments reflect this.

Section 204 carries:

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS TO MAXIMUM 3 YEARS + FINE

Whereas Section 205 carries:

UP TO 3 MONTHS / ₹5,000 / BOTH

Q32. What is the punishment under Section 204?

Answer:

The punishment is:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

for a term:

NOT LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

and:

UP TO 3 YEARS

and:

FINE

Q33. Does Section 204 prescribe a mandatory minimum imprisonment?

Answer:

Yes.

The punishment:

SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

This is a significant feature.

Q34. What is the maximum imprisonment?

Answer:

3 YEARS

Q35. Is fine optional or mandatory?

Answer:

The supplied wording states:

“AND WITH FINE”

Therefore, imprisonment is accompanied by fine.

Q36. Is a maximum fine amount stated?

Answer:

No numerical maximum fine has been supplied in the text provided.

Therefore, no specific ceiling should be invented.

Q37. What type of imprisonment is available?

Answer:

The section provides:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

Q38. What is the classification of Section 204?

Answer:

According to the supplied classification:

COGNIZABLE

NON-BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q39. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

204 = C + NB + ANY MAGISTRATE

Q40. How does Section 204 differ from Section 205?

Answer:

This is the most important comparison.

Section 204

The accused:

Pretends to hold a public office; or
Falsely personates the holder of such office;

and then:

Does or attempts to do an act under colour of that office.

Section 205

The accused:

Does not belong to a class of public servants;
Wears resembling garb or carries a resembling token;
With intention or knowledge that others may believe he belongs to that class.

Memory

204 = PERSONATE + ACT

205 = DRESS / TOKEN + DECEPTIVE BELIEF

Q41. What is the simplest distinction between Sections 204 and 205?

Answer:

204 = FALSE OFFICE

205 = FALSE APPEARANCE

Q42. Can Section 205 exist without an official act?

Answer:

Yes.

Section 205 does not expressly require an act under colour of office.

Q43. Can Section 204 exist without an act or attempted act under colour of office?

Answer:

No.

That is an essential statutory requirement.

Q44. How do the mens rea requirements differ?

Answer:

Section 204

Requires, in the first mode, knowledge that the accused does not hold the office, plus false assumption followed by official-type conduct.

Section 205

Requires intention that others may believe, or knowledge that they are likely to believe, that the accused belongs to the relevant class of public servants.

Q45. How do the punishments differ?

Answer:

Section 204

6 MONTHS MINIMUM → 3 YEARS MAXIMUM + FINE

Section 205

UP TO 3 MONTHS / ₹5,000 / BOTH

Q46. How do the classifications differ?

Answer:

Section 204

COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE

Section 205

COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE

Memory

204 = MORE SERIOUS → NON-BAILABLE

205 = LESS SERIOUS → BAILABLE

Q47. How does Section 204 differ from Section 206?

Answer:

Section 204

FALSELY ASSUME PUBLIC OFFICE

Section 206

ABSCOND TO AVOID OFFICIAL SERVICE

Memory

204 = PRETEND TO BE THE OFFICIAL

206 = HIDE FROM THE OFFICIAL PROCESS

Q48. Must the act under colour of office itself be independently illegal?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not state that the act must independently amount to another offence.

The central requirement is that the accused, in the assumed public-servant character, does or attempts to do an act under colour of that office.

Q49. Is an attempt expressly punishable within Section 204 itself?

Answer:

Yes.

The section expressly says:

“DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO DO ANY ACT”

Therefore, the provision itself includes attempted official action.

Q50. Why is this important for exams?

Answer:

Because a candidate may incorrectly assume that the accused must successfully complete the act.

That is not required.

Memory

ATTEMPT IS ENOUGH

provided all the other ingredients are proved.

Q51. Can Section 204 apply where no one obeys the accused?

Answer:

Yes.

Actual obedience is not expressly required.

The accused may commit the offence by merely attempting to act under colour of the assumed office.

Q52. Can Section 204 apply where the attempted official act fails?

Answer:

Yes.

The statute expressly includes:

ATTEMPTS TO DO ANY ACT

Q53. What is the most important factual question in a Section 204 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

DID THE ACCUSED FALSELY ASSUME A PUBLIC OFFICE OR IDENTITY AND THEN ACT OR ATTEMPT TO ACT AS IF HE POSSESSED THAT OFFICIAL AUTHORITY?

Q54. What is the best problem-question method?

Answer:

Ask:

What particular public office is involved?
Did the accused actually hold that office?
If not, did he knowingly pretend to hold it?
Alternatively, did he falsely personate the actual office-holder?
Did he act in that assumed character?
Did he do or attempt to do an act under colour of that office?

If these requirements are established:

SECTION 204 MAY APPLY

Q55. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

PRETENDS TO HOLD

PARTICULAR OFFICE

PUBLIC SERVANT

KNOWING THAT HE DOES NOT HOLD SUCH OFFICE

FALSELY PERSONATES

ASSUMED CHARACTER

DOES OR ATTEMPTS TO DO

UNDER COLOUR OF SUCH OFFICE

Q56. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

PRETEND TO BE PUBLIC SERVANT + ACT AS PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 204

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Two Modes of Personation

Section 204 covers:

FALSELY CLAIMING THE OFFICE

FALSELY CLAIMING TO BE THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE OFFICE

2. Knowledge

In the first mode, the accused must know:

HE DOES NOT HOLD THE OFFICE

3. False Representation Alone Is Not Enough

The accused must, in the assumed character:

DO OR ATTEMPT TO DO AN ACT

4. Official Connection Is Essential

The act or attempt must be:

UNDER COLOUR OF SUCH OFFICE

5. Attempt Is Expressly Included

A completed official-type act is unnecessary.

ATTEMPT ALONE MAY SUFFICE

6. Actual Deception Is Not Expressly Required

The provision does not expressly require another person to be successfully deceived.

7. Financial Gain Is Not Required

Money, property, wrongful gain, or wrongful loss are not essential ingredients.

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

FALSE PUBLIC OFFICE OR FALSE PERSONATION

KNOWLEDGE OF FALSEHOOD

ASSUMED CHARACTER

ACT OR ATTEMPT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE

= SECTION 204

Punishment Notes

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS

MAXIMUM 3 YEARS

AND FINE

Important

No numerical maximum fine was supplied.

Classification Notes

COGNIZABLE

NON-BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Memory

204 = C + NB + ANY MAGISTRATE

IPC Equivalent and BNS Change

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 204 BNS = SECTION 170 IPC

The operating portion remains unchanged.

The major change is punishment.

Earlier IPC Position

UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH

BNS Position

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS → MAXIMUM 3 YEARS + FINE

Therefore, the punishment has been made significantly stricter.

Section 204 vs Section 205

Section 204 — Personation

The accused:

Pretends to hold public office; or
Personates the actual office-holder;
And acts or attempts to act under colour of office.

Memory

PERSONATE + ACT

Section 205 — Garb or Token

The accused:

Does not belong to the class;
Wears resembling garb or carries resembling token;
With intention or knowledge of likely false belief.

Memory

DRESS/TOKEN + FALSE IMPRESSION

Best Section 204–205 Comparison

204 = I AM THE OFFICIAL

205 = I LOOK LIKE THE OFFICIAL

And critically:

204 REQUIRES ACT/ATTEMPT UNDER OFFICE

whereas:

205 FOCUSES ON GARB/TOKEN + DECEPTIVE MENS REA

Quick Revision Notes

Section

204 BNS

Title

Personating a public servant

IPC Equivalent

Section 170 IPC

First Mode

Pretend to hold a particular public office knowing one does not hold it.

Second Mode

Falsely personate another person holding that office.

Further Requirement

In the assumed character:

DO OR ATTEMPT TO DO AN ACT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE

Punishment

Either description, minimum 6 months, maximum 3 years + fine

Classification

Cognizable + Non-Bailable + Any Magistrate

BNS Change

Punishment increased from:

UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH

to:

6 MONTHS MINIMUM TO 3 YEARS MAXIMUM + FINE

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Mere false claim of being a public servant is enough

Incomplete.

Section 204 additionally requires:

ACT OR ATTEMPT UNDER COLOUR OF OFFICE

Trap 2 — Only impersonating a named officer is covered

Incorrect.

The section also covers pretending to hold a particular office generally.

Trap 3 — Actual completion of the official act is necessary

Incorrect.

ATTEMPT IS EXPRESSLY INCLUDED

Trap 4 — Actual deception of another person is essential

Not expressly required.

Trap 5 — Financial gain must be proved

Incorrect.

No financial gain is required.

Trap 6 — Section 204 is the same as wearing an official uniform

Incorrect.

That conduct is more directly associated with Section 205.

Section 204 requires actual personation plus official-type action or attempt.

Trap 7 — Section 204 has no mandatory minimum

Incorrect.

The imprisonment:

SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

Trap 8 — Fine is merely optional

The supplied wording states:

“AND WITH FINE”

Trap 9 — Section 204 is bailable

Incorrect.

The supplied classification is:

NON-BAILABLE

Trap 10 — The BNS left punishment unchanged

Incorrect.

The punishment has been made substantially stricter.

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 204–212

204 = PERSONATE PUBLIC SERVANT

205 = WEAR GARB / CARRY TOKEN

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

211 = FAIL TO GIVE INFORMATION

212 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION

Memory Chain

PERSONATE → DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT → WITHHOLD RECORD → WITHHOLD INFO → FALSE INFO

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 204

FALSE PUBLIC-SERVANT OFFICE OR IDENTITY

KNOWLEDGE OF FALSEHOOD

ACT OR ATTEMPT

UNDER COLOUR OF THE ASSUMED OFFICE

= SECTION 204

Punishment Memory

MINIMUM 6 MONTHS

MAXIMUM 3 YEARS

+ FINE

Classification

C + NB + ANY MAGISTRATE

Key Takeaway

Section 204 BNS punishes a person who falsely assumes a particular public office, or falsely personates the person holding that office, and then acts or attempts to act under colour of that office.

The most important point is that:

MERE FALSE CLAIM IS NOT THE WHOLE OFFENCE

The false assumption must be accompanied by:

AN ACT OR ATTEMPT UNDER THE ASSUMED OFFICIAL CHARACTER

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 204 BNS = SECTION 170 IPC

The substantive operating part remains unchanged, but the punishment is significantly stricter under the BNS:

6 MONTHS MINIMUM → 3 YEARS MAXIMUM + FINE

Final Memory Line

“204 = PRETEND TO BE THE PUBLIC SERVANT, THEN ACT OR TRY TO ACT AS ONE.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 205: Wearing Garb or Carrying Token Used by Public Servant with Fraudulent Intent

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 205: Wearing Garb or Carrying Token Used by Public Servant with Fraudulent Intent

Introduction

Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with a person who does not belong to a particular class of public servants, but nevertheless wears garb or carries a token resembling that used by such public servants, with the intention or knowledge that others may believe that he belongs to that class.

The section therefore protects the authenticity and credibility of official uniforms, insignia, badges, tokens, and similar identifying symbols associated with public servants.

Its focus is not merely on wearing a similar uniform or carrying a similar token. The crucial element is the required fraudulent or deceptive mental state.

Core Formula

NOT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC-SERVANT CLASS + WEARS RESEMBLING GARB OR CARRIES RESEMBLING TOKEN + INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE THAT OTHERS MAY BELIEVE HE BELONGS TO THAT CLASS = SECTION 205

Q1. What does Section 205 punish?

Answer:

Section 205 punishes a person who:

Does not belong to a certain class of public servants;
Wears garb resembling garb used by that class; or
Carries a token resembling a token used by that class;
Does so with:

The intention that it may be believed that he belongs to that class; or
The knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class.

Q2. What is the object of Section 205?

Answer:

The object is to prevent deceptive use of official appearance or symbols.

Public servants are often identified by uniforms, badges, insignia, identity marks, or other official tokens. If persons outside that class could intentionally imitate those identifying features in order to appear official, public confidence could be misused.

Section 205 therefore protects the distinction between:

GENUINE PUBLIC-SERVANT IDENTITY

and

FALSE APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC-SERVANT STATUS

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 205 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 205 BNS = Section 171 IPC

Q4. Has the language of the section changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the language remains unchanged.

The principal identified change is the increase in the maximum fine.

Q5. What fine change has been made?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

₹200 → ₹5,000

Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 205?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

The accused does not belong to a certain class of public servants;
The accused:

Wears garb resembling that used by that class; or
Carries a token resembling that used by that class;

The accused acts with:

Intention that it may be believed he belongs to that class; or
Knowledge that it is likely to be believed he belongs to that class.

Formula

NON-MEMBER + RESEMBLING GARB/TOKEN + INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF FALSE BELIEF = SECTION 205

Q7. What is the first essential requirement?

Answer:

The person must be:

NOT BELONGING TO THE RELEVANT CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

This requirement is fundamental.

Q8. Why is non-membership important?

Answer:

Because the section is aimed at persons who create the appearance that they belong to a public-servant class when they actually do not.

A genuine member of that class ordinarily would not satisfy this particular ingredient merely by wearing the garb or carrying the token of that class.

Q9. Does Section 205 apply to every type of public servant?

Answer:

The wording refers to:

A CERTAIN CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Therefore, the offence depends upon the particular class whose garb or token is being imitated.

Q10. What is the first prohibited mode?

Answer:

The accused may:

WEAR GARB

resembling garb used by the relevant class of public servants.

Q11. What is the second prohibited mode?

Answer:

The accused may:

CARRY A TOKEN

resembling a token used by that class of public servants.

Q12. Must the garb be exactly identical?

Answer:

No.

The statutory wording uses:

“RESEMBLING”

Therefore, exact identity is not expressly required.

Q13. Must the token be exactly identical?

Answer:

No.

Again, resemblance is sufficient if the other statutory ingredients are present.

Q14. Why is the word “resembling” important?

Answer:

Because the offence is not limited to perfect copies.

A sufficiently similar garb or token may fall within the provision if it is used with the required intention or knowledge.

Q15. What does “garb” generally refer to in the context of the provision?

Answer:

In the context of Section 205, garb refers to clothing or dress associated with the relevant class of public servants.

The central point is whether the clothing resembles the official garb used by that class.

Q16. What does “token” refer to?

Answer:

The provision refers to a token used by the class of public servants.

The statutory focus is on whether the accused carries a token resembling the official token and does so with the required deceptive intention or knowledge.

Q17. Is mere possession of similar clothing enough?

Answer:

No.

The section refers to:

WEARING

the garb.

Mere possession, without more, is not the conduct expressly described in this limb.

Q18. Is mere possession of an official-looking token enough?

Answer:

The statutory wording requires the person to:

CARRY

the token.

But even carrying it is not sufficient unless the required mental element is also proved.

Q19. What is the required mens rea?

Answer:

The section provides two alternative mental states:

Intention that it may be believed that he belongs to that class; or
Knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class.

Q20. Are intention and knowledge cumulative requirements?

Answer:

No.

They are alternatives.

The statutory structure is:

INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE

Q21. What does the intention limb mean?

Answer:

It means the person wears the garb or carries the token with the purpose that others may believe:

HE BELONGS TO THAT CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Q22. What does the knowledge limb mean?

Answer:

It means the person knows that it is likely others will believe he belongs to that class of public servants.

Thus, liability does not depend only on a direct purpose to deceive. Knowledge of the likely misleading impression can also satisfy the section.

Q23. Is actual deception required?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording does not require proof that someone was actually deceived.

The focus is on the accused’s:

INTENTION

KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY BELIEF

Q24. Must anyone actually treat the accused as a public servant?

Answer:

No.

Actual reliance is not expressly required.

Q25. Must the accused obtain money or property?

Answer:

No.

No financial gain is required.

Q26. Must the accused cause financial loss?

Answer:

No.

Financial loss is not an ingredient.

Q27. Must the accused perform an official act?

Answer:

No.

Section 205 itself focuses on wearing the garb or carrying the token with the required intention or knowledge.

Performance of an official act is not stated as an essential ingredient.

Q28. Must the accused expressly say, “I am a public servant”?

Answer:

No.

The section is capable of applying through appearance alone, provided the garb or token resembles that of the public-servant class and the necessary mental element exists.

Q29. Is an express verbal representation necessary?

Answer:

No.

The offence may arise from the deceptive use of garb or token itself.

Q30. Is mere resemblance enough without deceptive intent or knowledge?

Answer:

No.

This is a major exam point.

The prosecution must establish not only resemblance, but also:

INTENTION THAT IT MAY BE BELIEVED

KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE BELIEVED

that the accused belongs to that class.

Q31. Would innocent fancy dress automatically amount to Section 205?

Answer:

Not automatically.

If the person lacks the statutory intention or knowledge that others may believe he actually belongs to the public-servant class, the required mens rea may be absent.

Q32. Would theatrical costume automatically amount to the offence?

Answer:

Not automatically.

Again, the central question is whether the costume is worn with the required intention or knowledge concerning false belief of official status.

Q33. Is fraudulent financial gain necessary?

Answer:

No.

Although the title refers to fraudulent intent, the statutory mental element is specifically framed as:

INTENTION THAT IT MAY BE BELIEVED

KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE BELIEVED

that the accused belongs to that public-servant class.

Q34. Is dishonesty expressly required?

Answer:

No.

The section does not separately require “dishonesty.”

Q35. Is wrongful gain expressly required?

Answer:

No.

Q36. Is wrongful loss expressly required?

Answer:

No.

Q37. Is actual harm to public administration required?

Answer:

No.

Actual harm is not expressly required.

The offence is aimed at the deceptive appearance itself when accompanied by the necessary mental state.

Q38. What is the punishment under Section 205?

Answer:

The punishment is:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS

FINE UP TO ₹5,000

BOTH

Q39. What does “imprisonment of either description” mean for study purposes?

Answer:

The section does not confine punishment to simple imprisonment.

It provides:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

for a term up to three months.

Q40. What is the maximum imprisonment?

Answer:

3 MONTHS

Q41. What is the maximum fine?

Answer:

₹5,000

Q42. What is the classification of Section 205?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q43. What is the easiest classification memory?

Answer:

205 = C + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Q44. How does Section 205 differ from Section 206?

Answer:

Section 205

Deals with:

FALSE APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC-SERVANT STATUS

through garb or token.

Section 206

Deals with:

ABSCONDING TO AVOID SERVICE OF SUMMONS/NOTICE/ORDER

Memory

205 = PRETEND OFFICIAL

206 = EVADE OFFICIAL PROCESS

Q45. How does Section 205 differ from Section 221?

Answer:

Section 205

The accused deceptively resembles a class of public servants through garb or token.

Section 221

The accused obstructs a public servant in discharge of public functions.

Memory

205 = LOOK LIKE PUBLIC SERVANT

221 = BLOCK PUBLIC SERVANT

Q46. Does Section 205 require actual exercise of public power?

Answer:

No.

The section is complete on the supplied wording once the required garb/token conduct and mens rea are established.

Q47. Can the offence exist before anyone actually obeys the accused?

Answer:

Yes.

Actual obedience by another person is not stated as an ingredient.

Q48. Can the offence exist even if the disguise is unsuccessful?

Answer:

Potentially yes.

The statutory test is based on the accused’s intention or knowledge concerning the belief likely to be created.

Actual successful deception is not expressly required.

Q49. Why is Section 205 best understood as an appearance-based offence?

Answer:

Because its central concern is the false appearance of belonging to a public-servant class through:

GARB

TOKEN

rather than through an express statement alone.

Q50. What must be proved about the relevant class of public servants?

Answer:

There must be a class of public servants using the garb or token which the accused’s garb or token resembles.

The prosecution must therefore connect the resemblance to an identifiable class of public servants.

Q51. Is resemblance to a generic professional uniform enough?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

The wording specifically concerns resemblance to garb or token:

USED BY A CERTAIN CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Q52. Does Section 205 require that the accused know the precise legal designation of the public-servant class?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not expressly impose such a requirement.

The relevant mental element concerns the belief that the accused belongs to the class.

Q53. What is the most important factual question in a Section 205 problem?

Answer:

Ask:

WAS THE GARB OR TOKEN USED SO THAT OTHERS MIGHT BELIEVE THE ACCUSED BELONGED TO THAT PUBLIC-SERVANT CLASS?

Q54. What is the best problem-question method for Section 205?

Answer:

Ask:

Is there a certain class of public servants?
Does that class use particular garb or a particular token?
Does the accused belong to that class?
If not, did the accused:

Wear resembling garb; or
Carry a resembling token?

Did the accused intend that others might believe he belonged to the class?
Alternatively, did he know it was likely others would believe so?

If these ingredients are established:

SECTION 205 MAY APPLY

Q55. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

NOT BELONGING

CERTAIN CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

WEARS ANY GARB

CARRIES ANY TOKEN

RESEMBLING

INTENTION THAT IT MAY BE BELIEVED

KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE BELIEVED

Q56. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

FALSE UNIFORM/TOKEN + INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF FALSE OFFICIAL BELIEF = SECTION 205

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Non-Membership Is Essential

The accused must:

NOT BELONG TO THE RELEVANT PUBLIC-SERVANT CLASS

2. Two Forms of Conduct

The accused may:

WEAR RESEMBLING GARB

CARRY RESEMBLING TOKEN

3. Exact Copy Is Not Required

The section uses:

RESEMBLING

not “identical.”

4. Mens Rea Has Two Alternatives

The accused must act with:

INTENTION THAT IT MAY BE BELIEVED

KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE BELIEVED

that he belongs to the relevant class.

5. Actual Deception Is Not Expressly Required

The section focuses on the accused’s intention or knowledge.

6. Financial Gain Is Not Required

The offence does not depend on obtaining money, property, or another benefit.

7. Punishment

EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS

FINE UP TO ₹5,000

BOTH

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

NOT A MEMBER OF THE CLASS

WEARS RESEMBLING GARB / CARRIES RESEMBLING TOKEN

INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE THAT OTHERS MAY BELIEVE HE BELONGS TO THAT CLASS

= SECTION 205

Punishment Notes

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS

₹5,000 FINE

BOTH

Classification Notes

COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Memory

205 = C + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

IPC Equivalent and BNS Change

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 205 BNS = SECTION 171 IPC

The language remains unchanged.

The identified BNS change is:

MAXIMUM FINE: ₹200 → ₹5,000

Section 205 vs Section 206

Section 205

FALSE PUBLIC-SERVANT APPEARANCE

Section 206

ABSCOND TO AVOID OFFICIAL SERVICE

Best Memory

205 = DISGUISE

206 = DISAPPEAR

This provides a useful transition between the sections.

Quick Revision Notes

Section

205 BNS

Title

Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent

IPC Equivalent

Section 171 IPC

Accused

Must not belong to the relevant class of public servants.

Conduct

Wear resembling garb; or
Carry resembling token.

Mens Rea

Intention that it may be believed he belongs to that class; or
Knowledge that it is likely to be believed.

Actual Deception

Not expressly required.

Financial Gain

Not required.

Punishment

Either description up to 3 months / ₹5,000 / both

Classification

Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate

BNS Change

Fine increased from ₹200 to ₹5,000

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Any wearing of an official-looking costume is automatically an offence

Incorrect.

The required intention or knowledge must also exist.

Trap 2 — Exact copying is necessary

Incorrect.

The word used is:

RESEMBLING

Trap 3 — Only uniform is covered

Incorrect.

The provision covers:

GARB OR TOKEN

Trap 4 — The accused must actually deceive someone

Incorrect.

Actual successful deception is not expressly required.

Trap 5 — Money must be obtained

Incorrect.

Financial gain is not an ingredient.

Trap 6 — The accused must expressly claim to be a public servant

Incorrect.

The section can operate through deceptive appearance created by garb or token.

Trap 7 — Intention alone is the only mens rea

Incorrect.

The alternatives are:

INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE

Trap 8 — Any similar private-sector uniform is enough

Incorrect.

The resemblance must relate to garb or token used by:

A CERTAIN CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Trap 9 — Simple imprisonment only

Incorrect.

The supplied provision says:

IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION

Trap 10 — Section 205 is non-cognizable

Incorrect.

The supplied classification is:

COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE

High-Yield Link: Sections 205–212

205 = FALSE OFFICIAL APPEARANCE

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

211 = FAIL TO GIVE INFORMATION

212 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION

Memory Chain

DISGUISE → DISAPPEAR → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT → WITHHOLD RECORD → WITHHOLD INFO → FALSE INFO

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 205

NOT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC-SERVANT CLASS

RESEMBLING GARB OR TOKEN

INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF FALSE BELIEF

= SECTION 205

Punishment Memory

3 MONTHS / ₹5,000 / BOTH

Classification

C + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Key Takeaway

Section 205 BNS punishes a person who does not belong to a certain class of public servants but wears garb or carries a token resembling that used by the class, with the intention that others may believe—or with knowledge that they are likely to believe—that he belongs to that class.

The offence therefore requires more than superficial resemblance. The key element is the deceptive mental state:

INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY FALSE BELIEF

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 205 BNS = SECTION 171 IPC

The language remains unchanged, but the maximum fine has increased substantially:

₹200 → ₹5,000

Final Memory Line

“205 = NOT THE OFFICIAL, BUT DRESS OR CARRY THE TOKEN SO PEOPLE MAY THINK YOU ARE.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 206: Absconding to Avoid Service of Summons or Other Proceeding

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 206: Absconding to Avoid Service of Summons or Other Proceeding

Introduction

Section 206 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who absconds for the purpose of avoiding service of a summons, notice, or order issued by a legally competent public servant.

The provision targets conduct occurring before service is completed. Its focus is not merely on absence, but on a person deliberately absconding in order to avoid being served.

A more serious punishment applies where the summons, notice, or order requires attendance in Court, personally or through an agent, or requires production of a document or electronic record in Court.

Core Formula

ABSCONDING + PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SERVICE + SUMMONS/NOTICE/ORDER + LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 206

Q1. What does Section 206 punish?

Answer:

Section 206 punishes a person who:

Absconds;
Does so in order to avoid service;
The service relates to a:

Summons;
Notice; or
Order;

The process proceeds from a public servant; and
That public servant is legally competent to issue it.

Q2. What is the object of Section 206?

Answer:

The object is to prevent persons from deliberately evading lawful official process by absconding.

A lawful summons, notice, or order cannot effectively operate if the intended recipient intentionally disappears to avoid service.

Section 206 therefore protects the process of lawful service itself.

Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 206 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 206 BNS = Section 172 IPC

Q4. What changes have been made under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

The section has been rearranged;
The words “Court of Justice” have been replaced by “Court”;
The maximum fine under clause (a) has increased from ₹500 to ₹5,000;
The maximum fine under clause (b) has increased from ₹1,000 to ₹10,000.

Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 206?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

There must be a summons, notice, or order;
It must proceed from a public servant;
The public servant must be legally competent to issue it;
The accused must abscond;
The purpose of absconding must be to avoid being served with that process.

Formula

VALID PROCESS + COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT + ABSCONDING + PURPOSE TO AVOID SERVICE = SECTION 206

Q6. What kinds of official process are expressly covered?

Answer:

Section 206 covers:

SUMMONS

NOTICE

ORDER

Q7. Does Section 206 expressly mention proclamation?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording of Section 206 refers to:

Summons;
Notice;
Order.

A proclamation becomes relevant under neighbouring provisions such as Sections 207 to 209 in different contexts.

Q8. Must the process come from a public servant?

Answer:

Yes.

The summons, notice, or order must proceed from:

A PUBLIC SERVANT

Q9. Is public-servant status alone enough?

Answer:

No.

The public servant must also be:

LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE IT

Q10. Why is legal competence important?

Answer:

Because Section 206 protects lawful official process.

A person does not fall within the provision merely because he avoids an informal or unauthorised communication from someone who happens to be a public servant.

Q11. What is the principal act prohibited by Section 206?

Answer:

The prohibited act is:

ABSCONDING

Q12. Is mere absence enough?

Answer:

No.

This is a crucial distinction.

The section does not merely say that a person must be absent.

It requires that the person:

ABSCONDS IN ORDER TO AVOID SERVICE

Q13. What mens rea is required?

Answer:

The required mental element is contained in the words:

“IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING SERVED”

Therefore, the absconding must have the specific purpose of avoiding service.

Q14. Why is the phrase “in order to avoid” important?

Answer:

Because it makes Section 206 a purpose-based offence.

The prosecution must establish not merely that the person was unavailable, but that the person absconded for the purpose of evading service.

Q15. Is accidental absence enough?

Answer:

No.

Accidental absence does not amount to absconding for the purpose of avoiding service.

Q16. Is ordinary travel enough?

Answer:

Not by itself.

If a person is away for a genuine reason unrelated to avoiding service, the required purpose may be absent.

The critical question is:

WHY DID THE PERSON ABSCOND?

Q17. Is negligence enough?

Answer:

No.

Mere negligence does not satisfy the specific purpose required by the section.

Q18. Must the person permanently disappear?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording does not require permanent disappearance.

What matters is whether the person absconded in order to avoid service.

Q19. Must the person leave the country?

Answer:

No.

There is no requirement in the supplied text that the person leave India or cross any border.

Q20. Must the person leave his home?

Answer:

Not necessarily as a matter of statutory wording.

The real question is whether the conduct amounts to absconding for the purpose of avoiding service.

Q21. Must service actually fail?

Answer:

The section focuses on the act of absconding with the purpose of avoiding service.

The supplied wording does not separately state that eventual service must permanently fail.

Q22. Must actual harm result?

Answer:

No.

Actual harm, loss, or prejudice is not expressly required.

Q23. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

No.

Dishonesty is not an express ingredient.

Q24. Must fraudulent intention be proved?

Answer:

No.

Fraud is not expressly required.

Q25. Must malicious intention be proved?

Answer:

No.

The relevant specific intention is:

PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SERVICE

Q26. What does clause (a) cover?

Answer:

Clause (a) provides the general punishment where a person absconds to avoid service of a lawful summons, notice, or order.

Q27. What is the punishment under Section 206(a)?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH

FINE UP TO ₹5,000

BOTH

Q28. What type of imprisonment applies under clause (a)?

Answer:

The statute expressly provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Q29. What fine increase applies under clause (a)?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

₹500 → ₹5,000

Q30. What does clause (b) cover?

Answer:

Clause (b) applies where the summons, notice, or order requires the person:

To attend personally in Court;
To attend through an agent in Court; or
To produce a document or electronic record in Court.

Q31. What are the three Court-related situations under clause (b)?

Answer:

Remember:

ATTEND IN PERSON

ATTEND BY AGENT

PRODUCE DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

in Court.

Q32. Why does clause (b) carry a higher punishment?

Answer:

Because deliberate evasion of service concerning Court attendance or Court production can directly interfere with judicial proceedings.

The law therefore treats that form more seriously.

Q33. What is the punishment under Section 206(b)?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS

FINE UP TO ₹10,000

BOTH

Q34. Is rigorous imprisonment available under clause (b)?

Answer:

No.

Clause (b) also provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Q35. What fine increase applies under clause (b)?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

₹1,000 → ₹10,000

Q36. What terminology has changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

“COURT OF JUSTICE” → “COURT”

Q37. What is the easiest distinction between clauses (a) and (b)?

Answer:

206(a) = GENERAL SERVICE AVOIDANCE

206(b) = COURT ATTENDANCE OR COURT DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Q38. What is the punishment memory?

Answer:

GENERAL = 1 MONTH / ₹5,000

COURT = 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000

Q39. What is the classification of Section 206(a)?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q40. What is the classification of Section 206(b)?

Answer:

The same classification applies:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q41. What is the easiest classification memory?

Answer:

206(a) & (b) = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Q42. How does Section 206 differ from Section 207?

Answer:

This is the most important immediate distinction.

Section 206

The person:

ABSCONDS TO AVOID SERVICE

Section 207

The person:

INTENTIONALLY PREVENTS SERVICE, AFFIXING, OR PROCLAMATION

Memory

206 = RUN AWAY FROM SERVICE

207 = BLOCK SERVICE

Q43. How can Sections 206 and 207 be understood chronologically?

Answer:

They deal with two different ways of defeating official process:

206 = EVADE THE PROCESS BY ABSCONDING

then

207 = INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESS ITSELF

Q44. How does Section 206 differ from Section 208?

Answer:

Section 206

The person avoids being served in the first place.

Section 208

The person is legally required to attend under a summons, notice, order, or proclamation but intentionally fails to attend or leaves too early.

Memory

206 = AVOID SERVICE

208 = DISOBEY ATTENDANCE

Q45. How does Section 206 differ from Section 209?

Answer:

Section 206

ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

Section 209

FAIL TO APPEAR AFTER SECTION 84 BNSS PROCLAMATION

Section 209 operates at a later and more serious stage.

Q46. How does Section 206 differ from Section 210?

Answer:

Section 206

The person absconds to avoid being served with official process.

Section 210

The person is legally bound to produce a document or electronic record but intentionally fails to do so.

Memory

206 = EVADE SERVICE

210 = WITHHOLD RECORD

Q47. Can Section 206(b) relate to production of documents?

Answer:

Yes.

Clause (b) expressly covers a summons, notice, or order requiring production in Court of:

A DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

Q48. How does this differ from Section 210?

Answer:

The prohibited conduct is different.

Section 206(b)

The accused absconds to avoid being served with the requirement.

Section 210

The accused is already legally bound to produce the document or electronic record and intentionally omits to produce it.

Memory

206 = DODGE THE PROCESS

210 = DODGE THE PRODUCTION DUTY

Q49. Is physical force required under Section 206?

Answer:

No.

The offence is based on absconding to avoid service.

No force or violence is expressly required.

Q50. Is interference with the process server required?

Answer:

No.

Direct interference with service is more characteristic of Section 207.

Section 206 focuses on:

ABSCONDING

Q51. Can a person commit Section 206 without touching the summons or notice?

Answer:

Yes.

The person need not physically interfere with the process.

It is enough if he absconds for the purpose of avoiding service.

Q52. What is the most important factual question in a Section 206 case?

Answer:

The key factual question is:

DID THE PERSON ABSCOND IN ORDER TO AVOID SERVICE?

That specific purpose distinguishes criminal absconding under Section 206 from ordinary absence.

Q53. Does Section 206 require a proclamation?

Answer:

No.

The supplied wording is confined to:

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER

Q54. Why is this useful in distinguishing Section 206 from later provisions?

Answer:

Because:

206 concerns avoiding service of summons, notice, or order;
207 additionally deals with preventing proclamation;
208 expressly includes proclamation in the attendance context;
209 specifically concerns a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS.

Q55. What is the best problem-question method for Section 206?

Answer:

Ask:

Was there a summons, notice, or order?
Did it proceed from a public servant?
Was that public servant legally competent to issue it?
Did the accused abscond?
Was the purpose of absconding to avoid being served?
Did the process relate to Court attendance or production of a document/electronic record in Court?

If the first five are satisfied:

SECTION 206 APPLIES

The sixth determines whether clause (b) provides the higher punishment.

Q56. What are the key statutory words?

Answer:

ABSCONDS

IN ORDER TO AVOID

BEING SERVED

SUMMONS

NOTICE

ORDER

PUBLIC SERVANT

LEGALLY COMPETENT

COURT

DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

Q57. What is the easiest substantive memory formula?

Answer:

RUN AWAY TO AVOID LAWFUL SERVICE = SECTION 206

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Nature of the Offence

Section 206 deals with:

ABSCONDING TO EVADE SERVICE

2. Official Processes Covered

The provision expressly covers:

SUMMONS

NOTICE

ORDER

3. Competent Public Servant

The process must proceed from a public servant:

LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE IT

4. Central Act

The accused must:

ABSCOND

5. Central Purpose

The accused must abscond:

IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING SERVED

This is the key mens rea.

6. Clause (a): General Form

Punishment:

SI UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

7. Clause (b): Court-Related Form

Where the process requires:

Court attendance personally;
Court attendance by agent; or
Production of document/electronic record in Court;

the punishment is:

SI UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER

LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT

ABSCONDING

PURPOSE TO AVOID SERVICE

= SECTION 206

Punishment Notes

206(a)

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

206(b)

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Classification Notes

Both clauses:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Memory

206 = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

IPC Equivalent and BNS Changes

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 206 BNS = SECTION 172 IPC

The identified changes are:

1. Rearrangement

The section has been rearranged.

2. Court Terminology

“COURT OF JUSTICE” → “COURT”

3. Clause (a) Fine

₹500 → ₹5,000

4. Clause (b) Fine

₹1,000 → ₹10,000

Section 206 vs Section 207

Section 206

ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

Section 207

PREVENT SERVICE OR PUBLICATION

Best Memory

206 = EVADE

207 = INTERFERE

Section 206 vs Section 208

Section 206

AVOID BEING SERVED

Section 208

FAIL TO ATTEND AFTER LAWFUL PROCESS

Best Memory

206 = DON’T RECEIVE

208 = DON’T ATTEND

Section 206 vs Section 209

Section 206

ABSCOND BEFORE SERVICE

Section 209

FAIL TO APPEAR AFTER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

Best Memory

206 = EVADE EARLY

209 = DEFAULT AFTER PROCLAMATION

Section 206 vs Section 210

Section 206

ABSCOND TO AVOID PROCESS

Section 210

INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

Best Memory

206 = PERSON HIDES

210 = RECORD WITHHELD

Quick Revision Notes

Section

206 BNS

Title

Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceeding

IPC Equivalent

Section 172 IPC

Processes Covered

Summons / Notice / Order

Authority

Legally competent public servant

Act

Absconding

Purpose

To avoid being served

Clause (a)

General case.

Punishment

SI up to 1 month / ₹5,000 / both

Clause (b)

Where process requires:

Attendance in Court personally or by agent; or
Production of document/electronic record in Court.

Punishment

SI up to 6 months / ₹10,000 / both

Classification

NC + B + Any Magistrate

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Mere absence equals absconding

Incorrect.

The person must abscond:

IN ORDER TO AVOID SERVICE

Trap 2 — Any official communication is covered

Incorrect.

The section specifically refers to:

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER

Trap 3 — Public-servant status alone is sufficient

Incorrect.

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY COMPETENT

Trap 4 — Proclamation is expressly included in Section 206

Incorrect.

The supplied text of Section 206 expressly mentions summons, notice, and order.

Trap 5 — Actual failure of service must be permanent

Not expressly required.

The focus is on absconding with the purpose of avoiding service.

Trap 6 — Dishonesty must be proved

Incorrect.

The crucial mens rea is:

PURPOSE TO AVOID SERVICE

Trap 7 — Section 206 and Section 207 are the same

Incorrect.

206 = ABSCOND

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/AFFIXING/PUBLICATION

Trap 8 — Section 206 and Section 208 are the same

Incorrect.

206 = AVOID SERVICE

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

Trap 9 — Forgetting the Court aggravation

GENERAL = 1 MONTH / ₹5,000

COURT = 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000

Trap 10 — Forgetting electronic records

Clause (b) expressly includes process requiring production of:

A DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD

in Court.

High-Yield Sequence: Sections 206–212

These provisions can be remembered as a procedural progression:

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE/PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE RECORD

211 = FAIL TO GIVE INFORMATION

212 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION

Memory Chain

EVADE → BLOCK → ABSENT → PROCLAIMED ABSENT → WITHHOLD RECORD → WITHHOLD INFO → FALSE INFO

Rapid Revision Link: Sections 206–227

206 = ABSCOND TO AVOID SERVICE

207 = PREVENT SERVICE / PUBLICATION

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND / LEAVE EARLY

209 = FAIL TO APPEAR UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = OMIT DOCUMENT/ELECTRONIC RECORD

211 = OMIT NOTICE/INFORMATION

212 = FURNISH FALSE INFORMATION

213 = REFUSE OATH

214 = REFUSE ANSWER

215 = REFUSE SIGNATURE

216 = FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH

217 = FALSE INFORMATION TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC POWER

218 = RESIST TAKING OF PROPERTY

219 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SALE

220 = ILLEGAL BID AT PUBLIC SALE

221 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT

222 = FAIL TO ASSIST PUBLIC SERVANT

223 = DISOBEY PUBLIC ORDER

224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT

225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION

226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT

227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 206

VALID SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER

LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT

ABSCONDING

PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SERVICE

= SECTION 206

Punishment Memory

206(a) — GENERAL

SI UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

206(b) — COURT

SI UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Classification

NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Key Takeaway

Section 206 BNS criminalises absconding for the specific purpose of avoiding service of a summons, notice, or order issued by a legally competent public servant.

The central distinction is that Section 206 is not about mere non-attendance or ordinary absence. The person must abscond:

IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING SERVED

The Court-related form attracts the higher punishment where the process requires attendance in Court or production of a document or electronic record in Court.

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 206 BNS = SECTION 172 IPC

The principal BNS changes are the rearrangement of the section, substitution of “Court” for “Court of Justice”, and increased fines.

Final Memory Line

“206 = RUN AWAY SO THE SUMMONS, NOTICE, OR ORDER CANNOT BE SERVED.”

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 207: Preventing Service of Summons or Other Proceeding, or Preventing Publication Thereof

Click here to start customizing

Published on: September 12, 2026

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 208: Non-Attendance in Obedience to an Order from Public Servant

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 208: Non-Attendance in Obedience to an Order from Public Servant

Introduction

Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the intentional failure of a person to comply with a lawful requirement to attend at a particular place and time.

The provision applies where a person is legally bound to attend, either personally or through an agent, because of a summons, notice, order, or proclamation issued by a public servant who is legally competent to issue it.

Importantly, Section 208 covers two forms of non-compliance:

The person intentionally does not attend at the required place or time; or
The person attends but leaves before the time at which he is lawfully entitled to leave.

The section then distinguishes between ordinary official attendance and attendance required in a Court.

Core Formula

LEGAL DUTY TO ATTEND + LAWFUL SUMMONS/NOTICE/ORDER/PROCLAMATION + COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT + INTENTIONAL NON-ATTENDANCE OR PREMATURE DEPARTURE = SECTION 208

Q1. What is the offence under Section 208 BNS?

Answer:

A person commits the offence where:

He is legally bound to attend;
Attendance is required either:

In person; or
By an agent;

Attendance is required at a certain place and time;
The requirement arises from a:

Summons;
Notice;
Order; or
Proclamation;

It proceeds from a public servant legally competent to issue it; and
The person intentionally:

Omits to attend at the required place or time; or
Departs before the time at which it is lawful for him to leave.

Q2. What is the object of Section 208?

Answer:

The section ensures obedience to lawful processes issued by competent public authorities.

A public servant may lawfully require the attendance of a person for an official proceeding. Similarly, a Court may require the attendance of a witness or another person.

If legally required attendance could simply be ignored without consequence, official and judicial proceedings could be frustrated.

Section 208 therefore penalises intentional non-attendance or premature departure.

Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 208 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 208 BNS = Section 174 IPC

Q4. Has the basic language of the provision changed under the BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the language remains substantially unchanged, although the section has been rearranged.

The comments identify three principal changes:

The provision has been rearranged;
“Court of Justice” has been replaced by “Court”;
The maximum fines have been increased.

Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 208?

Answer:

The essential ingredients may be remembered as follows:

First — Legal obligation

The accused must be:

LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND

Second — Mode of attendance

Attendance may be required:

IN PERSON OR BY AN AGENT

Third — Place and time

Attendance must be required at:

A CERTAIN PLACE AND TIME

Fourth — Official process

The obligation must arise from a:

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER / PROCLAMATION

Fifth — Competent authority

The process must proceed from:

A PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE IT

Sixth — Intentional breach

The accused must intentionally:

FAIL TO ATTEND

LEAVE BEFORE LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO LEAVE

Q6. Is every failure to attend an official appointment an offence under Section 208?

Answer:

No.

There must first be a legal obligation to attend.

A voluntary appointment, informal invitation, or casual request is not automatically sufficient.

The statutory words are:

“BEING LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND”

Q7. Why is the phrase “legally bound” important?

Answer:

It establishes that criminal liability depends upon a legal duty, rather than a mere moral, social, or informal expectation.

Therefore:

NO LEGAL DUTY → NO SECTION 208 ON THIS BASIS

Q8. Must the accused always attend personally?

Answer:

No.

The section expressly provides for attendance:

IN PERSON OR BY AN AGENT

Therefore, the exact mode of attendance depends upon the legal requirement applicable in the particular situation.

Q9. What four kinds of official process are expressly covered?

Answer:

Section 208 expressly mentions:

Summons
Notice
Order
Proclamation

Memory Formula

S-N-O-P

Summons → Notice → Order → Proclamation

Q10. Must the process come from a public servant?

Answer:

Yes.

The summons, notice, order, or proclamation must proceed from a:

PUBLIC SERVANT

Q11. Is it sufficient that the person issuing the process happens to be a public servant?

Answer:

No.

This is an important qualification.

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE THE PROCESS

Thus, public-servant status alone is insufficient.

Q12. Why is legal competence important?

Answer:

Section 208 is designed to punish disobedience to a lawfully issued process.

Therefore, the provision expressly requires legal competence on the part of the issuing public servant.

Exam Memory

PUBLIC SERVANT + LEGAL COMPETENCE

Both matter.

Q13. Must the required place of attendance be certain?

Answer:

Yes.

The section refers to attendance:

AT A CERTAIN PLACE

The obligation must therefore identify where attendance is required.

Q14. Must the required time also be certain?

Answer:

Yes.

The section refers to:

A CERTAIN PLACE AND TIME

Both are relevant to determining whether the person has complied.

Q15. What is the first way in which Section 208 may be violated?

Answer:

The first is:

INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO ATTEND

For example, a person who is legally summoned to Court intentionally stays away.

Q16. What is the second way in which Section 208 may be violated?

Answer:

A person may attend initially but:

LEAVE TOO EARLY

The section expressly covers a person who departs before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart.

Q17. Why is premature departure separately covered?

Answer:

Because merely arriving at the required place does not necessarily discharge the legal obligation.

If a person is legally required to remain available until released, deliberately leaving beforehand may defeat the purpose of the attendance requirement.

Thus:

COME BUT LEAVE EARLY = POTENTIAL SECTION 208

Q18. Is physical non-attendance the only form of the offence?

Answer:

No.

Section 208 therefore covers both:

NON-ARRIVAL

and

PREMATURE DEPARTURE

Q19. What mens rea is expressly required?

Answer:

The section uses the word:

“INTENTIONALLY”

Therefore, the omission to attend must be intentional.

Q20. Is accidental absence sufficient?

Answer:

No.

A purely accidental failure does not by itself satisfy the express requirement of intentional omission.

Q21. Is mere negligence the statutory test?

Answer:

No.

The statutory language is not merely “fails to attend.”

It specifically says:

“INTENTIONALLY OMITS TO ATTEND”

Q22. Must dishonesty be proved?

Answer:

No.

“Dishonestly” is not an express ingredient.

Q23. Must fraudulent intention be proved?

Answer:

No.

Fraud is not an express ingredient.

Q24. Must malice be proved?

Answer:

No.

Malice is not expressly required.

Q25. Must intention to obstruct the public servant be separately proved?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not impose a separate requirement of intention to obstruct.

The relevant mental element is the intentional omission to attend or intentional premature departure.

Q26. Must actual obstruction result?

Answer:

No actual obstruction is expressly required.

The offence centres upon intentional non-compliance with the lawful attendance requirement.

Q27. Must the proceeding actually be delayed?

Answer:

No.

Actual delay is not stated as an essential ingredient.

Q28. Must anyone suffer loss or injury?

Answer:

No.

Actual loss or injury is not expressly required.

Q29. What does Section 208(a) cover?

Answer:

Clause (a) provides the general punishment for intentional non-attendance or premature departure in breach of the legal obligation created by the competent public servant’s summons, notice, order, or proclamation.

It is the:

GENERAL FORM OF SECTION 208

Q30. What is the punishment under Section 208(a)?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH

FINE UP TO ₹5,000

BOTH

Q31. What type of imprisonment is provided under clause (a)?

Answer:

The statute specifically provides:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Q32. What fine change was made under Section 208(a)?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the maximum fine increased from:

₹500 → ₹5,000

That is a tenfold increase.

Q33. What does Section 208(b) cover?

Answer:

Clause (b) applies where the summons, notice, order, or proclamation requires attendance, personally or by agent:

IN A COURT

This attracts a higher punishment.

Q34. What is the punishment under Section 208(b)?

Answer:

The punishment is:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS

FINE UP TO ₹10,000

BOTH

Q35. What type of imprisonment applies under clause (b)?

Answer:

Again:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Q36. What fine change was made under clause (b)?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

₹1,000 → ₹10,000

Q37. What is the basic distinction between clauses (a) and (b)?

Answer:

The distinction is straightforward:

208(a) = GENERAL OFFICIAL ATTENDANCE

whereas:

208(b) = ATTENDANCE IN COURT

The Court-related form carries the heavier punishment.

Q38. What is the easiest punishment formula?

Answer:

GENERAL → 1 MONTH / ₹5,000

COURT → 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000

Q39. What happened to the expression “Court of Justice”?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the BNS replaces:

“COURT OF JUSTICE”

with:

“COURT”

Q40. What happens in Illustration (a)?

Answer:

A is legally bound to appear before a High Court pursuant to a subpoena issued by that Court.

A intentionally fails to appear.

A commits the offence under Section 208.

Q41. What ingredients are demonstrated by Illustration (a)?

Answer:

The Illustration demonstrates:

A legal obligation to attend;
A Court proceeding;
A subpoena requiring appearance;
Intentional failure to appear.

Because attendance is required before a Court, the illustration falls within the Court-related category.

Q42. What happens in Illustration (b)?

Answer:

A is legally bound to appear before a District Judge as a witness pursuant to a summons issued by the District Judge.

A intentionally fails to appear.

A commits the offence under Section 208.

Q43. What principle does Illustration (b) demonstrate?

Answer:

A person who is legally summoned as a witness cannot intentionally disregard the requirement to appear.

Memory

WITNESS + VALID SUMMONS + INTENTIONAL NON-APPEARANCE = SECTION 208

Q44. Which clause is illustrated by the two statutory illustrations?

Answer:

Both illustrations concern attendance before a Court.

They therefore illustrate the more serious Court-related situation under:

SECTION 208(b)

Q45. What is the classification of Section 208(a)?

Answer:

According to the supplied classification:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q46. What is the classification of Section 208(b)?

Answer:

The same classification is supplied:

NON-COGNIZABLE

BAILABLE

ANY MAGISTRATE

Q47. What is the classification memory formula?

Answer:

208(a) & (b) = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Q48. How does Section 208 differ from Section 209?

Answer:

This is an important examination distinction.

Section 208

It is the general provision concerning non-attendance in obedience to a:

Summons;
Notice;
Order; or
Proclamation;

issued by a legally competent public servant.

Section 209

It specifically concerns:

NON-APPEARANCE IN RESPONSE TO A PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 84 BNSS

Therefore:

208 = GENERAL ATTENDANCE PROCESS

209 = SPECIFIC SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

Q49. Is every proclamation case automatically Section 209 instead of Section 208?

Answer:

The sections should be distinguished according to their specific statutory requirements.

Section 208 generally includes a proclamation among the processes requiring attendance.

Section 209 specifically requires a proclamation:

PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 84(1) BNSS

and separately deals with the aggravated situation of a declared proclaimed offender under Section 84(4).

Q50. How do their punishments differ?

Answer:

Section 208 provides:

GENERAL — SI UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

COURT — SI UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Section 209 provides much heavier consequences:

ORDINARY SECTION 84 NON-APPEARANCE — UP TO 3 YEARS / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE

and where declared a proclaimed offender:

UP TO 7 YEARS + LIABLE TO FINE

Q51. How does their classification differ?

Answer:

According to the supplied material:

Section 208

NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE

Section 209

COGNIZABLE + NON-BAILABLE + MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

This is a major distinction.

Q52. How does Section 208 differ from Section 210?

Answer:

Section 208

The legally required:

PERSON DOES NOT ATTEND

Section 210

The legally required:

DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD IS NOT PRODUCED

Memory

208 = PERSON

210 = RECORD

Q53. What common feature do Sections 208 and 210 share?

Answer:

Both deal with intentional non-compliance with a legal duty.

But the object of the duty differs:

208 = ATTENDANCE

210 = PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT/ELECTRONIC RECORD

Q54. How does Section 208 differ from Section 211?

Answer:

Section 208

FAIL TO ATTEND

Section 211

FAIL TO GIVE NOTICE OR INFORMATION

Memory

208 = FAIL TO COME

211 = FAIL TO INFORM

Q55. How does Section 208 differ from Section 212?

Answer:

Section 208

The accused intentionally fails to attend.

Section 212

The accused is legally bound to furnish information but furnishes as true information which he knows or has reason to believe is false.

Memory

208 = NON-ATTENDANCE

212 = FALSE INFORMATION

Q56. How does Section 208 differ from Section 213?

Answer:

Section 208

REFUSAL/FAILURE TO ATTEND

Section 213

REFUSAL TO BIND ONESELF BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION

Q57. How does Section 208 differ from Section 214?

Answer:

Section 208

The person fails to attend despite a legal attendance obligation.

Section 214

The person is present in the relevant setting but refuses to answer a question lawfully demanded by a public servant where he is legally bound to state the truth.

Memory

208 = DON’T COME

214 = COME BUT DON’T ANSWER

Q58. How does Section 208 differ from Section 215?

Answer:

Section 208

NON-ATTENDANCE

Section 215

REFUSAL TO SIGN A STATEMENT

Q59. Can a person comply with Section 208 merely by briefly appearing and immediately leaving?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

This is precisely why the section expressly includes premature departure.

If the person leaves:

BEFORE THE TIME AT WHICH IT IS LAWFUL FOR HIM TO DEPART

the offence may still be committed.

Q60. What is the best way to solve a Section 208 problem question?

Answer:

Work through the following sequence:

First: Was there a legal duty to attend?

Second: Was attendance required personally or by agent?

Third: Was a certain place and time specified?

Fourth: Was there a summons, notice, order, or proclamation?

Fifth: Was it issued by a public servant?

Sixth: Was that public servant legally competent to issue it?

Seventh: Did the accused intentionally fail to attend or leave too early?

Eighth: Was the required attendance in a Court?

If the first seven requirements are established, Section 208 is potentially attracted.

The eighth determines whether the case falls under the more serious Court-related punishment.

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Nature of the Offence

Section 208 concerns:

INTENTIONAL NON-ATTENDANCE OR PREMATURE DEPARTURE

in breach of a legal attendance requirement.

2. Legal Duty Is Essential

The person must be:

LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND

Mere informal expectation is insufficient.

3. Attendance May Be Personal or Representative

The provision covers attendance:

IN PERSON OR BY AGENT

4. Place and Time Are Important

The legal obligation concerns attendance:

AT A CERTAIN PLACE AND TIME

5. Four Forms of Official Process

Remember:

SUMMONS

NOTICE

ORDER

PROCLAMATION

Memory

S-N-O-P

6. Competent Public Servant

It is not enough that the process comes from a public servant.

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE IT

7. Two Modes of Violation

The offence may be committed by:

(1) INTENTIONALLY NOT ATTENDING

(2) INTENTIONALLY LEAVING TOO EARLY

8. Clause (a) — General Form

Punishment:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH

FINE UP TO ₹5,000

BOTH

9. Clause (b) — Court Form

Where attendance is required in Court:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS

FINE UP TO ₹10,000

BOTH

Illustrations — Study Notes

Illustration (a): High Court

A is legally bound to appear before the High Court under a subpoena but intentionally fails to appear.

Result

SECTION 208 COMMITTED

Illustration (b): Witness Before District Judge

A is legally summoned to appear as a witness before a District Judge but intentionally fails to appear.

Result

SECTION 208 COMMITTED

IPC Equivalent and BNS Changes

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 208 BNS = SECTION 174 IPC

The identified BNS changes are:

1. Rearrangement

The section has been structurally rearranged.

2. Terminology

“COURT OF JUSTICE” → “COURT”

3. Clause (a) Fine

₹500 → ₹5,000

4. Clause (b) Fine

₹1,000 → ₹10,000

Quick Revision Notes

Section

208 BNS

Offence

NON-ATTENDANCE IN OBEDIENCE TO ORDER FROM PUBLIC SERVANT

IPC Equivalent

174 IPC

Legal Requirement

LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND

Attendance

PERSONALLY OR BY AGENT

Official Processes

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER / PROCLAMATION

Authority

LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT

Mens Rea

INTENTIONAL

Two Forms

FAIL TO ATTEND

LEAVE TOO EARLY

208(a)

SI UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

208(b)

SI UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Classification

NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Any failure to attend is enough

Incorrect.

The person must be:

LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND

Trap 2 — Any order by any public servant is sufficient

Incorrect.

The public servant must be:

LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ISSUE IT

Trap 3 — Only summons are covered

Incorrect.

Remember:

SUMMONS + NOTICE + ORDER + PROCLAMATION

Trap 4 — Attendance must always be personal

Incorrect.

The section expressly includes:

IN PERSON OR BY AGENT

Trap 5 — Only complete non-attendance is punishable

Incorrect.

Section 208 also expressly covers:

PREMATURE DEPARTURE

Trap 6 — Accidental absence is sufficient

Incorrect.

The omission must be:

INTENTIONAL

Trap 7 — Section 208 and Section 209 are identical

Incorrect.

208 = GENERAL OFFICIAL ATTENDANCE PROCESS

209 = SPECIFIC SECTION 84 BNSS PROCLAMATION

Trap 8 — Forgetting the Court aggravation

GENERAL = 1 MONTH / ₹5,000

COURT = 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000

Trap 9 — Rigorous imprisonment is available under either clause

Not according to the supplied wording.

Both clauses specify:

SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT

Trap 10 — Forgetting the classification

208 = NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE

Sections 208–215: High-Yield Sequence

These provisions form a useful procedural sequence:

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND

209 = FAIL TO APPEAR UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = FAIL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT/ELECTRONIC RECORD

211 = FAIL TO GIVE NOTICE/INFORMATION

212 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION

213 = REFUSE OATH/AFFIRMATION

214 = REFUSE TO ANSWER

215 = REFUSE TO SIGN

This can be remembered as:

ATTEND → PROCLAMATION → PRODUCE → INFORM → TRUTHFUL INFO → OATH → ANSWER → SIGN

Rapid Revision Link: Sections 208–227

208 = FAIL TO ATTEND / LEAVE EARLY

209 = FAIL TO APPEAR UNDER SECTION 84 PROCLAMATION

210 = OMIT DOCUMENT/ELECTRONIC RECORD

211 = OMIT NOTICE/INFORMATION

212 = FURNISH FALSE INFORMATION

213 = REFUSE OATH

214 = REFUSE ANSWER

215 = REFUSE SIGNATURE

216 = FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH

217 = FALSE INFORMATION TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC POWER

218 = RESIST TAKING OF PROPERTY

219 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SALE

220 = ILLEGAL BID AT PUBLIC SALE

221 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT

222 = FAIL TO ASSIST PUBLIC SERVANT

223 = DISOBEY PUBLIC ORDER

224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT

225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION

226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT

227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 208

LEGALLY BOUND TO ATTEND

IN PERSON OR BY AGENT

CERTAIN PLACE AND TIME

SUMMONS / NOTICE / ORDER / PROCLAMATION

LEGALLY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT

INTENTIONAL NON-ATTENDANCE OR PREMATURE DEPARTURE

= SECTION 208

Punishment Memory

208(a) — GENERAL

SI UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH

208(b) — COURT

SI UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000 / BOTH

Classification

NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE

Key Takeaway

Section 208 BNS deals with a person who is legally bound to attend, either personally or by agent, at a specified place and time pursuant to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation issued by a legally competent public servant, but intentionally fails to comply.

The section is broader than mere non-appearance because it also covers a person who appears but:

LEAVES BEFORE HE IS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO LEAVE

The two punishment levels are:

208(a) = GENERAL ATTENDANCE → 1 MONTH / ₹5,000

208(b) = COURT ATTENDANCE → 6 MONTHS / ₹10,000

According to the supplied comments:

SECTION 208 BNS = SECTION 174 IPC

The principal BNS changes are the rearrangement of the section, substitution of “Court” for “Court of Justice”, and substantial increases in the maximum fines.

Final Memory Line

“208 = LEGALLY ORDERED TO ATTEND, BUT INTENTIONALLY DON’T COME — OR COME AND LEAVE TOO EARLY.”

Author

Learn the fact about law

LAW

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 199: Public Servant Disobeying Direction Under Law

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 200: Punishment for Non-Treatment of Victim

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 201: Public Servant Framing an Incorrect Document with Intent to Cause Injury

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 202: Public Servant Unlawfully Engaging in Trade

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 203: Public Servant Unlawfully Buying or Bidding for Property

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 204: Personating a Public Servant

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 205: Wearing Garb or Carrying Token Used by Public Servant with Fraudulent Intent

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 206: Absconding to Avoid Service of Summons or Other Proceeding

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 207: Preventing Service of Summons or Other Proceeding, or Preventing Publication Thereof

KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 208: Non-Attendance in Obedience to an Order from Public Servant

Author

Archives

Categories