- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 219: Obstructing Sale of Property Offered for Sale by Authority of Public Servant
Introduction
Section 219 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who intentionally obstructs a sale of property conducted under the lawful authority of a public servant.
The section protects the orderly conduct of officially authorised property sales and prevents deliberate interference with such proceedings.
The core idea is simple:
LAWFUL PUBLIC SALE + INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION = SECTION 219
Q1. What does Section 219 punish?
Answer:
Section 219 punishes any person who:
- Intentionally obstructs;
- A sale of property;
- The property is offered for sale;
- The sale is held under the lawful authority of a public servant.
Q2. What is the object of Section 219?
Answer:
The object is to protect the integrity and orderly functioning of sales conducted under public authority.
It seeks to prevent persons from deliberately interfering with:
- Official auction proceedings;
- Lawful public sales;
- Sale processes undertaken under public authority;
- Execution of lawful public functions involving sale of property.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 219 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 219 BNS = Section 184 IPC
Q4. Has the language of Section 219 changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED
The principal change concerns the amount of fine.
Q5. What punishment change has been made?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the maximum fine has increased from:
₹500 → ₹5,000
Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 219?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a sale of property;
- The property must be offered for sale;
- The sale must be under the lawful authority of a public servant;
- The accused must obstruct the sale;
- The obstruction must be intentional.
Formula
SALE OF PROPERTY + LAWFUL PUBLIC AUTHORITY + INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION = SECTION 219
Q7. What kind of sale is covered by Section 219?
Answer:
The sale must be:
A SALE OF PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE BY THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q8. Is a purely private sale covered?
Answer:
No.
The section specifically concerns sales held under lawful public authority.
A private sale between private individuals would not fall under Section 219 merely because someone interferes with it.
Q9. Why is lawful authority important?
Answer:
Because the provision protects officially authorised sales.
The public servant must be acting under lawful authority in relation to the sale.
Q10. Who must have authority over the sale?
Answer:
The sale must be held by the lawful authority of:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q11. What is the prohibited act under Section 219?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
OBSTRUCTION OF THE SALE
Q12. What does “obstructs” mean?
Answer:
It means to hinder, impede, interfere with, block, delay, or create an obstacle to the proper conduct of the sale.
Q13. Must the obstruction be physical?
Answer:
The statutory wording does not expressly limit obstruction to physical conduct.
The key requirement is intentional interference with the sale.
Q14. Is violence necessary?
Answer:
No.
Section 219 does not expressly require violence, force, assault, or injury.
Q15. Is actual damage to property required?
Answer:
No.
The offence concerns obstruction of the sale process itself.
Actual damage to the property is not an express ingredient.
Q16. What mental element is required?
Answer:
The obstruction must be:
INTENTIONAL
Q17. Is accidental interference enough?
Answer:
No.
Accidental interference would not satisfy the express requirement of intentional obstruction.
Q18. Is negligence sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The section requires intentional conduct.
Q19. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not expressly require dishonesty.
Q20. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q21. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not expressly required.
Q22. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
The accused need not personally benefit financially.
The offence is complete through intentional obstruction of the lawful sale.
Q23. Must the sale actually fail?
Answer:
No.
The statutory focus is on intentional obstruction.
The sale need not necessarily be permanently prevented or cancelled.
Q24. Must the obstruction completely stop the sale?
Answer:
No.
Obstruction can exist even if the sale ultimately proceeds.
The offence concerns intentional interference, not necessarily permanent prevention.
Q25. Can delay amount to obstruction?
Answer:
Potentially yes, if the delay results from intentional conduct that hinders the sale.
Q26. Give a simple example of Section 219.
Answer:
Suppose property is being auctioned under the lawful authority of a public servant.
A deliberately prevents intending bidders from entering the auction venue so that the sale cannot proceed normally.
If done intentionally, Section 219 may apply.
Q27. Give another example.
Answer:
A lawful public sale is taking place.
B intentionally disrupts the proceedings and prevents the authorised public servant from continuing with the sale.
Section 219 may apply.
Q28. What if someone merely protests peacefully near the sale?
Answer:
Peaceful protest alone is not necessarily obstruction.
There must be conduct that intentionally interferes with or hinders the sale.
Q29. What if someone questions the legality of the sale?
Answer:
Merely questioning or challenging the sale does not automatically amount to Section 219.
The offence requires intentional obstruction of the sale.
Q30. Is mere presence at the sale enough?
Answer:
No.
Mere presence is not obstruction.
There must be intentional conduct that interferes with the sale.
Q31. Does Section 219 require proof that the accused knew the sale was under public authority?
Answer:
The supplied wording specifically requires intentional obstruction of a sale held under lawful public authority.
The section does not separately state a distinct knowledge formula in the same way as some neighbouring provisions, so the safest approach is to focus on proving intentional obstruction of the qualifying sale.
Q32. Does Section 219 apply only to auction sales?
Answer:
The supplied text uses the broader expression:
SALE OF PROPERTY
It does not expressly confine the provision only to auctions.
Q33. Does the section apply only to immovable property?
Answer:
No such limitation appears in the supplied text.
It refers generally to:
PROPERTY
Q34. Must the property be Government property?
Answer:
No.
The section does not say that the property must belong to the Government.
The important element is that the sale is conducted under lawful public authority.
Q35. Must the public servant own the property?
Answer:
No.
Ownership by the public servant is not required.
The public servant’s role concerns lawful authority over the sale.
Q36. Must the public servant personally conduct the sale?
Answer:
The wording requires that the property be offered for sale:
BY THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
The emphasis is on lawful authority behind the sale.
Q37. What if the sale has no lawful public authority?
Answer:
Then an essential ingredient of Section 219 would be absent.
Q38. What is the punishment under Section 219?
Answer:
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Q39. Is the imprisonment simple or rigorous?
Answer:
It may be either.
The provision states:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION
Q40. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
1 MONTH
Q41. What is the maximum fine?
Answer:
₹5,000
Q42. Is there a minimum sentence?
Answer:
No minimum sentence is stated in the supplied provision.
Q43. What is the classification of Section 219?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q44. Is Section 219 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q45. Is Section 219 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q46. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q47. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
219 = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q48. What is the easiest substantive memory?
Answer:
“INTENTIONALLY BLOCK A LAWFUL PUBLIC SALE = SECTION 219.”
Q49. How does Section 219 differ from Section 220?
Answer:
This is a very important distinction.
Section 219
The offender:
OBSTRUCTS THE SALE
Section 220
The offender:
IMPROPERLY PURCHASES OR BIDS AT THE SALE
Memory
219 = BLOCK THE SALE
220 = BAD BID AT THE SALE
Q50. What is the key act distinction between Sections 219 and 220?
Answer:
Section 219 is about:
INTERFERENCE WITH THE SALE PROCESS
Section 220 is about:
IMPROPER PARTICIPATION IN THE SALE
Q51. Does Section 219 require legal incapacity of a purchaser?
Answer:
No.
Legal incapacity belongs to one of the limbs of Section 220.
Section 219 focuses on obstruction.
Q52. Does Section 219 require a sham bid?
Answer:
No.
Sham bidding is part of Section 220.
Section 219 concerns intentional obstruction of the sale.
Q53. How does Section 219 differ from Section 221?
Answer:
Section 219
OBSTRUCT SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Section 221
OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT IN DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Memory
219 = OBSTRUCT SALE
221 = OBSTRUCT SERVANT
Q54. What is common between Sections 219 and 221?
Answer:
Both deal with obstruction.
However, the object of obstruction differs:
- Section 219 → the sale;
- Section 221 → the public servant’s discharge of public functions.
Q55. What is the mens rea difference between Sections 219 and 221?
Answer:
Section 219 expressly uses:
INTENTIONALLY
Section 221 uses:
VOLUNTARILY
Both require more than mere accident, but the statutory wording should be remembered exactly.
Q56. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 219?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was property being offered for sale?
- Was the sale held under lawful authority of a public servant?
- Did the accused obstruct the sale?
- Was the obstruction intentional?
If yes:
SECTION 219 MAY APPLY
Q57. What are the key words to remember?
Answer:
PROPERTY
SALE
LAWFUL AUTHORITY
PUBLIC SERVANT
INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION
Q58. What change from IPC Section 184 should be remembered?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
FINE INCREASED FROM ₹500 TO ₹5,000
Q59. Was the imprisonment term changed?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, no change in the imprisonment term is identified.
The stated change concerns the fine.
Q60. What is the core wrong under Section 219?
Answer:
The core wrong is:
DELIBERATELY INTERFERING WITH A PROPERTY SALE CONDUCTED UNDER LAWFUL PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Sale of Property
There must be:
A SALE OF PROPERTY
2. Public Authority
The sale must be held under:
THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
3. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must:
OBSTRUCT THE SALE
4. Mens Rea
The obstruction must be:
INTENTIONAL
5. No Violence Required
The section does not expressly require:
- Force;
- Assault;
- Injury;
- Damage to property.
6. No Need for Complete Failure of Sale
The sale need not ultimately fail.
Intentional obstruction itself is the central prohibited conduct.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE
+
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANT
+
INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION
= SECTION 219
Punishment Notes
Section 219 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
According to the supplied comments:
Section 219 BNS = Section 184 IPC
The language remains unchanged.
The important change is:
MAXIMUM FINE: ₹500 → ₹5,000
Section 219 vs Section 220
Section 219
OBSTRUCT THE SALE
Mens Rea
Intentional obstruction.
Punishment
1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH
Section 220
IMPROPERLY BID OR PURCHASE
Two modes:
- Bid/purchase for legally disqualified person;
- Bid without intention to perform obligations.
Punishment
1 MONTH / ₹200 / BOTH
Best Distinction
219 = STOP THE SALE
220 = CORRUPT THE BIDDING
Section 219 vs Section 221
Section 219
OBSTRUCTION OF SALE
Section 221
OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVANT
Memory
219 = SALE
221 = SERVANT
Quick Revision Notes
Section
219 BNS
Title
Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority of public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 184 IPC
Act
Intentional obstruction.
Object Obstructed
Sale of property.
Authority
Lawful authority of public servant.
Mens Rea
Intentional.
Violence Required?
No.
Actual Failure of Sale Required?
Not expressly.
Punishment
Either description up to 1 month / fine up to ₹5,000 / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
Fine increased from ₹500 to ₹5,000.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Treating obstruction of a private sale as Section 219
Incorrect.
The sale must be under:
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 2 — Forgetting mens rea
The obstruction must be:
INTENTIONAL
Trap 3 — Requiring violence
Incorrect.
Violence is not an express ingredient.
Trap 4 — Requiring damage to the property
Incorrect.
The offence concerns obstruction of the sale.
Trap 5 — Requiring the sale to fail completely
Incorrect.
Intentional obstruction can be sufficient even if the sale eventually proceeds.
Trap 6 — Confusing Section 219 with Section 220
Remember:
219 = OBSTRUCT SALE
220 = ILLEGAL BID/PURCHASE
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 219 with Section 221
Remember:
219 = OBSTRUCT SALE
221 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 8 — Forgetting that property need not belong to Government
The section focuses on lawful authority over the sale, not Government ownership.
Trap 9 — Forgetting the punishment
1 MONTH / ₹5,000
Trap 10 — Forgetting the BNS change
According to the supplied comments:
₹500 → ₹5,000
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 219–227
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
Memory Chain
BLOCK SALE → BAD BID → BLOCK SERVANT → REFUSE HELP → DISOBEY → THREAT → BLOCK PROTECTION → COERCE → FALSE EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 219
LAWFUL PUBLIC SALE
+
INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION
= SECTION 219
Punishment
1 MONTH / ₹5,000 / BOTH
Classification
NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Key Takeaway
Section 219 BNS protects lawful property sales conducted under the authority of public servants.
The offence is established where:
- Property is being offered for sale;
- The sale is held under lawful public authority; and
- The accused intentionally obstructs the sale.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 219 BNS = Section 184 IPC
The language remains unchanged, but the maximum fine has increased from:
₹500 TO ₹5,000
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH / FINE UP TO ₹5,000 / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“219 = INTENTIONALLY BLOCK A PROPERTY SALE HELD UNDER LAWFUL PUBLIC AUTHORITY.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 220: Illegal Purchase or Bid for Property Offered for Sale by Authority of Public Servant
Introduction
Section 220 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with improper participation in a sale of property conducted under the lawful authority of a public servant.
The section targets two forms of misconduct:
- Purchasing or bidding on behalf of a person who is legally disqualified from purchasing the property at that sale, with knowledge of that incapacity; and
- Bidding without intending to perform the obligations created by the bid.
The central idea is:
LAWFUL PUBLIC SALE + DISQUALIFIED PURCHASER OR SHAM BID = SECTION 220
Q1. What does Section 220 punish?
Answer:
Section 220 punishes a person who, at a sale of property held under the lawful authority of a public servant:
- Purchases or bids for property on behalf of himself or another person whom he knows to be legally incapable of purchasing that property at that sale; or
- Bids for the property without intending to perform the obligations created by that bid.
Q2. What is the object of Section 220?
Answer:
The object is to protect the integrity of sales conducted under lawful public authority.
It seeks to prevent:
- Circumvention of legal disqualifications;
- Proxy purchases for persons who cannot legally buy;
- Sham or non-genuine bidding;
- Abuse of public sales;
- Disruption of lawful sale procedures.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 220 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 220 BNS = Section 185 IPC
Q4. Has Section 220 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 220?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a sale of property;
- The sale must be held under the lawful authority of a public servant;
- The accused must purchase or bid for property at that sale;
- Either:
- The purchase or bid is on behalf of a person under legal incapacity to purchase that property at that sale, and the accused knows of that incapacity; or
- The accused bids without intending to perform the obligations arising from the bid.
Formula
LAWFUL PUBLIC SALE + PURCHASE/BID + LEGAL INCAPACITY OR NO INTENT TO PERFORM = SECTION 220
Q6. What kind of sale is covered by Section 220?
Answer:
The sale must be:
A SALE OF PROPERTY HELD BY THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q7. Is every private sale covered?
Answer:
No.
A purely private sale does not fall within Section 220 merely because there is improper bidding.
The sale must be connected with the lawful authority of a public servant.
Q8. Why is lawful authority important?
Answer:
Because Section 220 protects sales conducted through lawful public authority.
If the sale is not held under such authority, this specific section would not apply on that basis.
Q9. What are the two principal modes of committing the offence?
Answer:
There are two main modes:
Mode 1
Purchase or bid for a legally disqualified person.
Mode 2
Bid without intending to honour the obligations of the bid.
Memory
DISQUALIFIED BUYER OR DISHONEST BID
Q10. What is the first mode of liability?
Answer:
A person purchases or bids for property:
- On account of himself or another;
- For a person who is legally incapable of purchasing that property at that sale; and
- The accused knows of that legal incapacity.
Q11. What does “on account of any person” mean?
Answer:
It means the purchase or bid may be made:
- For oneself; or
- For another person.
The section expressly covers both.
Q12. Can a person commit the offence by bidding for himself?
Answer:
Yes.
The wording says:
“WHETHER HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER”
Thus, liability can arise whether the person is acting for himself or another.
Q13. What is meant by “legal incapacity to purchase”?
Answer:
It means that the person is legally disqualified from purchasing the particular property at that particular sale.
The incapacity must be legal, not merely personal or financial.
Q14. Is financial inability the same as legal incapacity?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The section refers to:
LEGAL INCAPACITY
not mere lack of money or practical inability.
Q15. Must the accused know about the incapacity?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly requires that the accused:
KNOWS
the person to be under legal incapacity.
Q16. Is mere suspicion enough?
Answer:
The statutory wording requires knowledge.
Mere suspicion, without knowledge, does not satisfy the express wording.
Q17. Why does the section punish proxy bidding?
Answer:
Because a legal disqualification should not be defeated by using another person as a front or intermediary.
Q18. Give a simple example of the first mode.
Answer:
Suppose A is legally barred from purchasing property at a particular public sale.
B knows this but bids for the property on A’s behalf.
Section 220 may apply.
Q19. Does the legally incapacitated person have to be the actual bidder?
Answer:
No.
The section specifically covers bidding by another person on behalf of the legally incapacitated person.
Q20. What is the second mode of liability?
Answer:
The second mode applies where a person:
BIDS FOR PROPERTY WITHOUT INTENDING TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY THE BID
Q21. What is the wrong in the second mode?
Answer:
The wrong is making a bid that is not genuine.
The bidder takes on obligations by bidding but has no intention of fulfilling them.
Q22. Must the bidder actually default later?
Answer:
The statutory focus is on the bidder’s lack of intention at the time of bidding.
Actual later default may be relevant evidence, but the core element is the absence of intention to perform the obligations when the bid is made.
Q23. Is a later genuine inability to pay automatically an offence?
Answer:
No.
A person who genuinely intended to perform but later becomes unable to do so is different from someone who never intended to perform from the beginning.
Q24. What mental element is required in the second mode?
Answer:
The bidder must lack the intention to perform the obligations under the bid.
Memory
NO GENUINE INTENT TO HONOUR THE BID
Q25. Is dishonest intention expressly mentioned?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use the word “dishonestly.”
But the second mode expressly requires bidding without intention to perform the obligations.
Q26. Is fraudulent intention expressly required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not separately stated as an ingredient.
Q27. Is actual loss to the Government or another person required?
Answer:
No actual loss is expressly required by the text.
The offence focuses on prohibited participation in the sale.
Q28. Must the sale actually be completed?
Answer:
No.
A prohibited bid itself may be sufficient if the statutory ingredients are present.
Q29. Must the property actually be transferred?
Answer:
No.
The provision covers both:
- Purchasing; and
- Bidding.
Thus, liability may arise at the bidding stage itself.
Q30. Does the section apply only to successful bidders?
Answer:
No.
Because the section expressly punishes a person who:
BIDS
in the prohibited circumstances.
Winning the sale is not always necessary.
Q31. Does the section apply only to immovable property?
Answer:
The supplied wording says:
PROPERTY
and does not expressly confine the provision to immovable property.
Q32. Must the public servant personally conduct the sale?
Answer:
The statutory requirement is that the sale be held:
BY THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
The focus is on lawful public authority behind the sale.
Q33. What if the sale is not legally authorised?
Answer:
Then an essential element of Section 220 would be absent.
The sale must be held under lawful authority.
Q34. What if the bidder did not know that the represented buyer was legally disqualified?
Answer:
For the first mode, the express knowledge requirement would not be satisfied.
Q35. What if a person knowingly bids for a disqualified person but the bid is unsuccessful?
Answer:
The section covers the act of bidding itself.
Therefore, success is not necessarily required.
Q36. What if a person bids for a legally eligible purchaser but never intends to honour the bid?
Answer:
The second mode may still apply.
Legal incapacity is not required where the prosecution relies on the sham-bid limb.
Q37. What if a person intends to honour the bid but is bidding for a legally disqualified person?
Answer:
The first mode may apply if:
- The person is legally disqualified; and
- The bidder knows of that disqualification.
Q38. Are the two modes cumulative?
Answer:
No.
They are alternative ways in which Section 220 can be committed.
A case may involve one or both, but either prohibited mode can independently be relevant.
Q39. What is the punishment under Section 220?
Answer:
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH
or
FINE UP TO ₹200
or
BOTH
Q40. Can imprisonment be simple or rigorous?
Answer:
Yes.
The section provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION
Q41. What is the maximum imprisonment?
Answer:
1 MONTH
Q42. What is the maximum fine?
Answer:
₹200
Q43. Is there a minimum imprisonment term?
Answer:
No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.
Q44. What is the classification of Section 220?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q45. Is Section 220 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q46. Is Section 220 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q47. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q48. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
220 = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q49. What is the easiest substantive memory for Section 220?
Answer:
“PUBLIC SALE + DISQUALIFIED BUYER OR FAKE BID = 220.”
Q50. How does Section 220 differ from Section 221?
Answer:
Section 220
Deals with:
ILLEGAL PURCHASE OR BIDDING AT PUBLIC SALE
Section 221
Deals with:
VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVANT
Memory
220 = BID
221 = BLOCK
Q51. What common theme connects Sections 220 and 221?
Answer:
Both protect the proper operation of public authority.
But:
- Section 220 protects integrity of public sales;
- Section 221 protects public servants from obstruction.
Q52. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 220?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there a sale of property?
- Was the sale held under lawful authority of a public servant?
- Did the accused purchase or bid?
- Was he acting for a legally disqualified person whom he knew to be disqualified?
OR
- Did he bid without intending to perform the obligations of the bid?
If yes:
SECTION 220 MAY APPLY
Q53. What are the key words to remember?
Answer:
SALE
PROPERTY
PUBLIC SERVANT
LAWFUL AUTHORITY
PURCHASE / BID
LEGAL INCAPACITY
KNOWLEDGE
NO INTENT TO PERFORM
Q54. What are the two best memory labels?
Answer:
PROXY BID FOR DISQUALIFIED BUYER
and
SHAM BID WITHOUT INTENT TO PERFORM
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Public Sale
The sale must be:
HELD BY THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
2. First Mode
The accused:
PURCHASES OR BIDS
for himself or another person whom he knows to be legally incapable of purchasing at that sale.
Core Formula
LEGAL INCAPACITY + KNOWLEDGE + PURCHASE/BID = FIRST MODE
3. Second Mode
The accused:
BIDS WITHOUT INTENDING TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BID
Core Formula
BID + NO INTENTION TO PERFORM = SECOND MODE
4. No Actual Purchase Required
Because “bid” is expressly included, the offence can arise before transfer of property.
5. No Actual Loss Required
The section does not expressly require proof of financial loss or completed damage.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
SALE UNDER LAWFUL PUBLIC AUTHORITY
+
PURCHASE OR BID
+
either
KNOWN LEGAL INCAPACITY
or
NO INTENTION TO PERFORM BID OBLIGATIONS
= SECTION 220
Punishment Notes
Section 220 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH
or
FINE UP TO ₹200
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
Section 220 BNS = Section 185 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Two Modes of Section 220
Mode 1 — Disqualified Purchaser
Think:
“YOU CANNOT BUY IT, SO I WILL BID FOR YOU.”
Required elements:
- Legal incapacity;
- Knowledge;
- Purchase or bid.
Mode 2 — Sham Bid
Think:
“I WILL BID, BUT I NEVER INTEND TO HONOUR IT.”
Required element:
- No intention to perform obligations created by bidding.
Best Two-Mode Memory
220 = DISQUALIFIED BUYER / DISHONEST BID
Quick Revision Notes
Section
220 BNS
Title
Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 185 IPC
Sale
Property sale under lawful authority of public servant.
Mode 1
Purchase/bid for person legally incapable of purchasing.
Mens Rea for Mode 1
Knowledge of legal incapacity.
Mode 2
Bid without intending to perform obligations.
Successful Purchase Required?
No.
Actual Loss Required?
Not expressly.
Punishment
Either description up to 1 month / fine up to ₹200 / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
No substantive change stated.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Treating every improper private auction bid as Section 220
Incorrect.
The sale must be held under:
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 2 — Forgetting knowledge in the first mode
The bidder must know of the legal incapacity.
Trap 3 — Confusing legal incapacity with financial inability
The statute refers to:
LEGAL INCAPACITY
Trap 4 — Thinking the disqualified person must personally bid
Incorrect.
The provision expressly covers proxy purchase or bidding.
Trap 5 — Requiring the bid to succeed
Incorrect.
The act of prohibited bidding itself may be sufficient.
Trap 6 — Requiring actual loss
No actual loss is expressly required.
Trap 7 — Treating later inability to pay as automatically criminal
The second mode requires lack of intention to perform when bidding.
Trap 8 — Thinking both modes must be proved
Incorrect.
They are alternative modes.
Trap 9 — Forgetting the very short punishment
Remember:
1 MONTH / ₹200
Trap 10 — Confusing Section 220 with Section 221
220 = BID
221 = BLOCK
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 220–227
220 = ILLEGAL PUBLIC-SALE BID
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
A useful progression is:
BID → BLOCK → REFUSE TO HELP → DISOBEY → THREAT → BLOCK PROTECTION → COERCE → FALSE EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 220
PUBLIC SALE
+
PURCHASE/BID
+
either
KNOWN LEGAL DISQUALIFICATION
or
NO INTENTION TO HONOUR BID
= SECTION 220
Punishment
1 MONTH / ₹200 / BOTH
Classification
NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Key Takeaway
Section 220 BNS protects the integrity of sales conducted under lawful public authority.
It criminalises two different forms of improper bidding:
1. BIDDING FOR A PERSON KNOWN TO BE LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED
and
2. BIDDING WITHOUT INTENDING TO HONOUR THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BID
According to the supplied comments:
Section 220 BNS = Section 185 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 MONTH / FINE UP TO ₹200 / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“220 = PUBLIC SALE + PROXY FOR DISQUALIFIED BUYER OR SHAM BID.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 221: Obstructing Public Servant in Discharge of Public Functions
Introduction
Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who voluntarily obstructs a public servant while that public servant is discharging public functions.
The provision protects the proper functioning of public administration by ensuring that public servants are able to perform their lawful public duties without deliberate interference.
The central formula is:
PUBLIC SERVANT + PUBLIC FUNCTION + VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION = SECTION 221
Q1. What does Section 221 punish?
Answer:
Section 221 punishes any person who:
- Obstructs a public servant;
- The obstruction is voluntary; and
- The public servant is acting in the discharge of public functions.
Q2. What is the object of Section 221?
Answer:
The object is to protect the uninterrupted performance of public functions.
The section prevents persons from deliberately interfering with the functioning of public authorities.
It therefore protects:
- Public administration;
- Performance of official duties;
- Lawful exercise of public functions;
- Effective functioning of public servants.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 221 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 221 BNS = Section 186 IPC
Q4. Has the language of the provision changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
THE LANGUAGE REMAINS UNCHANGED
The principal stated change concerns the amount of fine.
Q5. What change has been made to the fine?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the maximum fine has increased from:
₹500 → ₹2,500
Q6. What are the essential ingredients of Section 221?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a public servant;
- The public servant must be engaged in the discharge of public functions;
- The accused must obstruct the public servant;
- The obstruction must be voluntary.
Formula
PUBLIC SERVANT + PUBLIC FUNCTION + VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION = SECTION 221
Q7. Who must be obstructed?
Answer:
The person obstructed must be:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q8. Is obstruction of any person covered?
Answer:
No.
Section 221 specifically concerns obstruction of a:
PUBLIC SERVANT
Q9. What must the public servant be doing at the time?
Answer:
The public servant must be acting:
IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Q10. Why is the phrase “public functions” important?
Answer:
Because Section 221 is not attracted merely because the person obstructed happens to be a public servant.
The obstruction must relate to the performance of an official public function.
Q11. Is obstruction of a public servant in a purely private matter covered?
Answer:
No, not merely because the person holds public office.
The obstruction must occur in connection with:
PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Q12. What is the prohibited act under Section 221?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
OBSTRUCTION
Q13. What does “obstruct” mean in this context?
Answer:
It means to hinder, interfere with, impede, or create an obstacle to the public servant’s performance of public functions.
Q14. Must the obstruction be physical?
Answer:
The provision does not expressly say that obstruction must always involve physical force.
The key question is whether the accused voluntarily interferes with or hinders the public servant in the discharge of public functions.
Q15. Is actual use of force required?
Answer:
No.
Section 221 does not expressly require assault, force, or violence.
Q16. Is actual injury required?
Answer:
No.
The offence is based on obstruction, not on causing bodily injury.
Q17. Is violence necessary?
Answer:
No.
Voluntary obstruction may exist even without violence if the conduct genuinely hinders the public servant’s public functions.
Q18. What mental element is required?
Answer:
The obstruction must be:
VOLUNTARY
This means accidental or purely unintended interference is not what the section targets.
Q19. Is mere accident enough?
Answer:
No.
The section expressly requires:
VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION
Q20. Is negligence enough?
Answer:
Mere negligence is not the express basis of liability.
The statute requires the accused to obstruct voluntarily.
Q21. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use the term “dishonestly.”
Q22. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an ingredient.
Q23. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not expressly required.
Q24. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
No financial motive or benefit is required.
Q25. Must the accused intend to cause loss or injury?
Answer:
No such additional intention is stated.
The core mental element is voluntary obstruction.
Q26. Must the public servant actually fail to perform the public function?
Answer:
No express requirement of complete failure appears in the section.
If the accused voluntarily obstructs the public servant, the fact that the servant eventually completes the duty does not necessarily remove the offence.
Q27. Does obstruction have to be successful?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The essence is actual hindrance or interference, not permanent prevention of the public function.
Q28. Give a simple example.
Answer:
A public servant is lawfully carrying out an official inspection.
A deliberately blocks the official’s access to the place so that the inspection cannot proceed normally.
If the obstruction is voluntary and relates to the official’s public function, Section 221 may apply.
Q29. Give another example.
Answer:
A public servant is carrying out an official duty.
B deliberately places himself or an object in the servant’s path in order to hinder the performance of that duty.
If the statutory ingredients are satisfied, Section 221 may apply.
Q30. What if the accused merely disagrees with the public servant?
Answer:
Mere disagreement is not necessarily obstruction.
There must be conduct that actually hinders or interferes with the discharge of public functions.
Q31. Is verbal criticism alone necessarily obstruction?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The issue is whether the conduct amounts to real obstruction of the public servant’s public functions.
Q32. What if a person peacefully asks questions of an officer?
Answer:
Merely asking questions would not by itself amount to Section 221 unless the conduct rises to the level of voluntary obstruction.
Q33. What if a person intentionally blocks an officer’s official vehicle?
Answer:
If the act deliberately hinders the officer while performing public functions, it may amount to obstruction under Section 221.
Q34. Must the public servant’s conduct itself relate to official duty?
Answer:
Yes.
The section protects a public servant:
IN THE DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Q35. Is the legality of the public function important?
Answer:
The provision concerns the discharge of public functions, so the official context is essential.
The supplied text does not separately elaborate on disputes about the legality of individual acts, so the statutory focus should remain on obstruction of a public servant in the performance of public functions.
Q36. What is the punishment under Section 221?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹2,500
or
BOTH
Q37. Can imprisonment be simple or rigorous?
Answer:
Yes.
The section provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION
Q38. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
3 MONTHS
Q39. What is the maximum fine?
Answer:
₹2,500
Q40. Is there a minimum imprisonment term?
Answer:
No minimum term is stated in the supplied text.
Q41. What is the classification of Section 221?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q42. Is Section 221 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q43. Is Section 221 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q44. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q45. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
221 = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q46. What is the simplest way to remember Section 221?
Answer:
“DON’T BLOCK A PUBLIC SERVANT DOING PUBLIC DUTY.”
Q47. How does Section 221 differ from Section 222?
Answer:
Section 221
The accused actively:
OBSTRUCTS
a public servant.
Section 222
The accused:
FAILS TO ASSIST
a public servant despite being legally bound to help.
Memory
221 = ACTIVE OBSTRUCTION
222 = INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO ASSIST
Q48. What is the key act-versus-omission distinction between Sections 221 and 222?
Answer:
Section 221 is primarily concerned with:
POSITIVE INTERFERENCE
Section 222 is concerned with:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE LEGALLY REQUIRED ASSISTANCE
Q49. Is a legal duty to assist necessary under Section 221?
Answer:
No.
Section 221 does not require the accused to have been legally bound to assist.
It is enough that the accused voluntarily obstructs the public servant.
Q50. Is a legal duty to assist necessary under Section 222?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 222 expressly requires that the accused be:
BOUND BY LAW TO RENDER OR FURNISH ASSISTANCE
Q51. How does Section 221 differ from Section 223?
Answer:
Section 221
VOLUNTARILY OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT
Section 223
KNOWINGLY DISOBEY DULY PROMULGATED ORDER
with specified harmful consequences or risks.
Memory
221 = OBSTRUCT PERSON
223 = DISOBEY ORDER
Q52. How does Section 221 differ from Section 224?
Answer:
Section 221
The offender directly interferes with performance of public functions through obstruction.
Section 224
The offender uses:
THREAT OF INJURY
to induce the public servant to do, forbear, or delay official action.
Memory
221 = BLOCK
224 = THREAT
Q53. What is common to Sections 221 and 224?
Answer:
Both protect public servants in the exercise of public functions.
But the method differs:
- Section 221 = obstruction;
- Section 224 = threat.
Q54. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 221?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was the person obstructed a public servant?
- Was that public servant discharging public functions?
- Did the accused obstruct him?
- Was the obstruction voluntary?
If yes:
SECTION 221 MAY APPLY
Q55. What are the four core elements to remember?
Answer:
PUBLIC SERVANT
PUBLIC FUNCTION
OBSTRUCTION
VOLUNTARY
Q56. What is the shortest statutory formula?
Answer:
VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION + PUBLIC SERVANT + PUBLIC FUNCTION = SECTION 221
Q57. What change from the IPC should be remembered for examination purposes?
Answer:
The supplied comments identify one main punishment change:
FINE: ₹500 → ₹2,500
Q58. Was the term of imprisonment increased according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
No change in the imprisonment term is mentioned in the supplied comments.
The identified change is the increased fine.
Q59. What is the relationship between the act and the official function?
Answer:
The obstruction must occur:
IN THE DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
There must therefore be a connection between the accused’s obstruction and the public servant’s official activity.
Q60. What is the central wrong under Section 221?
Answer:
The central wrong is:
DELIBERATELY HINDERING PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHILE IT IS PERFORMING PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Protected Person
The person obstructed must be:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
2. Protected Activity
The public servant must be engaged in:
THE DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
3. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must:
OBSTRUCT
the public servant.
4. Mens Rea
The obstruction must be:
VOLUNTARY
5. No Additional Result Required
The section does not expressly require:
- Actual injury;
- Use of violence;
- Permanent prevention of the duty;
- Financial loss.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
+
VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION
= SECTION 221
Punishment Notes
Section 221 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹2,500
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Change
According to the supplied comments:
Section 221 BNS = Section 186 IPC
The language remains unchanged.
The principal stated change is:
MAXIMUM FINE: ₹500 → ₹2,500
Section 221 vs Section 222
Section 221
VOLUNTARY ACTIVE OBSTRUCTION
No separate legal duty to assist is required.
Punishment
UP TO 3 MONTHS / ₹2,500 / BOTH
Section 222
INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO ASSIST
A legal duty to render assistance is essential.
Punishment
General case:
1 MONTH / ₹2,500
Aggravated case:
6 MONTHS / ₹5,000
Best Distinction
221 = “DON’T GET IN THE WAY.”
222 = “IF LAW REQUIRES YOU TO HELP, DON’T REFUSE.”
Section 221 vs Sections 223–224
221
OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT
223
DISOBEY PUBLIC ORDER
224
THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
Three-Section Memory
221 = BLOCK
223 = DISOBEY
224 = THREAT
Quick Revision Notes
Section
221 BNS
Title
Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions
IPC Equivalent
Section 186 IPC
Act
Voluntary obstruction.
Victim
Public servant.
Context
Discharge of public functions.
Mens Rea
Voluntary conduct.
Actual Injury
Not required.
Violence
Not expressly required.
Punishment
Either description up to 3 months / fine up to ₹2,500 / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
Fine increased from ₹500 to ₹2,500.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking obstruction of any person is enough
Incorrect.
The person must be:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 2 — Forgetting the official-function requirement
The public servant must be:
DISCHARGING PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Trap 3 — Requiring physical violence
Incorrect.
The section speaks of:
OBSTRUCTION
not necessarily force or violence.
Trap 4 — Requiring injury
Actual injury is not an express ingredient.
Trap 5 — Ignoring the word “voluntarily”
Accidental interference is not enough.
The obstruction must be:
VOLUNTARY
Trap 6 — Confusing Section 221 with Section 222
Remember:
221 = OBSTRUCT
222 = FAIL TO ASSIST
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 221 with Section 223
Remember:
221 = OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT
223 = DISOBEY PUBLIC ORDER
Trap 8 — Confusing Section 221 with Section 224
Remember:
221 = OBSTRUCTION
224 = THREAT
Trap 9 — Forgetting the increased fine
Under the supplied comments:
₹500 → ₹2,500
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 221–227
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
A useful progression is:
OBSTRUCT → REFUSE TO HELP → DISOBEY → THREAT → BLOCK PROTECTION → COERCE → FALSE EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 221
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
PUBLIC FUNCTION
+
VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION
= SECTION 221
Punishment
3 MONTHS / ₹2,500 / BOTH
Classification
NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Key Takeaway
Section 221 BNS protects public servants against deliberate obstruction while carrying out public functions.
The offence is comparatively simple in structure:
PUBLIC SERVANT + PUBLIC FUNCTION + VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION
No actual injury, violence, dishonest motive, or financial benefit is expressly required.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 221 BNS = Section 186 IPC
The language remains unchanged, while the maximum fine has increased from:
₹500 TO ₹2,500
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 3 MONTHS / FINE UP TO ₹2,500 / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“221 = VOLUNTARILY BLOCK A PUBLIC SERVANT WHILE HE IS DOING PUBLIC WORK.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 222: Omission to Assist Public Servant When Bound by Law to Give Assistance
Introduction
Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with a person who is legally bound to assist a public servant in the execution of public duty but intentionally fails to do so.
The section distinguishes between:
- A general intentional omission to render legally required assistance; and
- A more serious omission where assistance is specifically demanded by a legally competent public servant for important purposes such as:
- Executing Court process;
- Preventing an offence;
- Suppressing a riot or affray;
- Apprehending an offender; or
- Apprehending a person who has escaped from lawful custody.
The central idea is:
LEGAL DUTY TO ASSIST + INTENTIONAL OMISSION = SECTION 222
Where the omission concerns one of the specially protected situations in clause (b), the punishment is higher.
Q1. What does Section 222 punish?
Answer:
Section 222 punishes a person who:
- Is legally bound to render or furnish assistance to a public servant;
- The assistance relates to the execution of the public servant’s public duty; and
- The person intentionally omits to provide that assistance.
Q2. What is the object of Section 222?
Answer:
The object is to ensure that persons who are legally required to assist public authorities do not deliberately refuse to cooperate.
The provision supports:
- Effective execution of public duties;
- Enforcement of Court process;
- Prevention of offences;
- Maintenance of public order;
- Apprehension of offenders;
- Prevention of unlawful escape.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 222 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 222 BNS = Section 187 IPC
Q4. What changes were made under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The provision has been rearranged into clauses;
- The expression “Court of Justice” has been replaced by “Court”;
- The fine under clause (a) has increased from ₹200 to ₹2,500;
- The fine under clause (b) has increased from ₹500 to ₹5,000.
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 222?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- The accused must be bound by law to render or furnish assistance;
- The assistance must be owed to a public servant;
- The assistance must relate to the execution of the public servant’s public duty;
- The accused intentionally omits to provide the assistance.
For clause (b), additional requirements apply.
Formula
LEGAL DUTY + PUBLIC SERVANT + PUBLIC DUTY + INTENTIONAL OMISSION = SECTION 222
Q6. Is a mere moral duty to assist sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The section expressly requires that the person be:
BOUND BY LAW
to provide the assistance.
A purely moral, social, or voluntary expectation is not enough.
Q7. Why is the phrase “bound by law” important?
Answer:
Because Section 222 does not impose criminal liability merely because someone could have helped.
The duty must arise from law.
Q8. To whom must assistance be owed?
Answer:
The assistance must be owed to:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q9. For what purpose must the assistance be required?
Answer:
Under the general limb, it must relate to:
THE EXECUTION OF THE PUBLIC SERVANT’S PUBLIC DUTY
Q10. What is the prohibited conduct?
Answer:
The prohibited conduct is:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO GIVE ASSISTANCE
Q11. Is negligence enough?
Answer:
No.
The provision expressly uses the word:
INTENTIONALLY
Thus, accidental failure, inability, or mere negligence is not the same as an intentional omission.
Q12. Is actual obstruction of the public servant required?
Answer:
No.
The section punishes the intentional omission itself where there is a legal duty to assist.
Actual obstruction or failure of the public duty is not expressly required.
Q13. Must the public servant’s duty be lawful?
Answer:
Yes, the provision is concerned with assistance in the execution of public duty, and clause (b) expressly requires legally competent demands and lawful Court process.
Q14. What does Section 222(a) cover?
Answer:
Clause (a) covers the general case where a person:
- Is legally bound to assist a public servant;
- Intentionally omits to provide the required assistance.
This is the less aggravated form.
Q15. What is the punishment under Section 222(a)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH
or
FINE UP TO ₹2,500
or
BOTH
Q16. Is the imprisonment under clause (a) simple or rigorous?
Answer:
It is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q17. What does Section 222(b) cover?
Answer:
Clause (b) applies where assistance is demanded by a public servant who is legally competent to make that demand, and the assistance is required for one of the specially listed purposes.
Q18. What additional requirement exists under clause (b)?
Answer:
Unlike the general clause, clause (b) expressly requires that assistance:
BE DEMANDED
by a public servant legally competent to make the demand.
Q19. What purposes are covered by Section 222(b)?
Answer:
The assistance may be demanded for:
- Executing any process lawfully issued by a Court;
- Preventing the commission of an offence;
- Suppressing a riot;
- Suppressing an affray;
- Apprehending a person charged with an offence;
- Apprehending a person guilty of an offence;
- Apprehending a person who has escaped from lawful custody.
Q20. What is the best memory sequence for clause (b)?
Answer:
PROCESS – PREVENT – SUPPRESS – APPREHEND
More fully:
COURT PROCESS
PREVENT OFFENCE
SUPPRESS RIOT/AFFRAY
APPREHEND OFFENDER/ESCAPEE
Q21. What does “executing any process lawfully issued by a Court” mean?
Answer:
It refers to assistance required for carrying out lawful Court process.
The important point is that the process must be:
LAWFULLY ISSUED
Q22. Why does clause (b) require lawful Court process?
Answer:
Because criminal liability should not arise for refusing assistance toward an unlawful process.
Lawfulness is therefore an important safeguard.
Q23. What does “preventing the commission of an offence” cover?
Answer:
It covers assistance lawfully demanded for the purpose of stopping an offence before it occurs.
Q24. Must the offence actually be prevented?
Answer:
No.
The section focuses on the intentional refusal to provide legally required assistance.
Q25. What is meant by suppressing a riot or affray?
Answer:
It means assisting lawful public authorities in controlling or bringing to an end:
- A riot; or
- An affray.
Q26. Why are riot and affray specifically mentioned?
Answer:
Because they directly threaten public peace and safety, making intentional refusal to provide legally required assistance more serious.
Q27. What type of apprehension is covered?
Answer:
Clause (b) covers assistance required to apprehend:
- A person charged with an offence;
- A person guilty of an offence;
- A person who has escaped from lawful custody.
Q28. Is an escaped prisoner covered?
Answer:
Yes, if the person has escaped from:
LAWFUL CUSTODY
Q29. Why is the word “lawful” important in relation to custody?
Answer:
Because the aggravated provision is concerned with enforcing lawful custody, not unlawful detention.
Q30. What is the punishment under Section 222(b)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Q31. Is the imprisonment under clause (b) also simple?
Answer:
Yes.
Clause (b) expressly provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q32. Why is clause (b) punished more severely?
Answer:
Because the omission relates to especially important public duties involving:
- Court process;
- Crime prevention;
- Public order;
- Apprehension of offenders;
- Escape from custody.
Q33. What is the easiest distinction between clauses (a) and (b)?
Answer:
Clause (a)
GENERAL LEGAL DUTY TO ASSIST
Clause (b)
SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR SERIOUS LAW-ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES
Q34. What is the punishment ladder?
Answer:
222(a) = 1 MONTH / ₹2,500
222(b) = 6 MONTHS / ₹5,000
Q35. Must assistance be specifically demanded under clause (a)?
Answer:
The wording of clause (a) does not expressly require a specific demand.
It applies where the person is legally bound to assist and intentionally omits to do so.
Q36. Must assistance be specifically demanded under clause (b)?
Answer:
Yes.
Clause (b) expressly states that:
SUCH ASSISTANCE BE DEMANDED
by a public servant legally competent to make the demand.
Q37. Must the public servant be legally competent to demand assistance?
Answer:
Yes, under clause (b).
This is an express statutory requirement.
Q38. What if a public servant without legal authority demands help?
Answer:
The aggravated clause (b) would require proof that the public servant was:
LEGALLY COMPETENT TO MAKE SUCH DEMAND
Q39. What if the accused genuinely cannot provide the assistance?
Answer:
The section requires an:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
A genuine inability may therefore be relevant to whether the required intentional failure is proved.
Q40. What if the person simply forgets to assist?
Answer:
Mere forgetfulness would not automatically establish intentional omission.
The mental element must be proved.
Q41. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The provision does not require dishonesty.
Q42. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not an express ingredient.
Q43. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not required.
Q44. Is intention to help an offender required?
Answer:
No.
The offence is based on intentional omission to provide legally required assistance.
A separate purpose to help an offender is not expressly necessary.
Q45. Is actual harm required?
Answer:
No.
Section 222 does not make actual harm a necessary ingredient.
The focus is on breach of the legal duty to assist.
Q46. Give a simple example under Section 222(a).
Answer:
Suppose A is legally required to assist a public servant in carrying out an official duty but deliberately refuses to provide that assistance.
If no special clause (b) situation is involved, Section 222(a) may apply.
Q47. Give an example under Section 222(b) involving Court process.
Answer:
A public servant legally competent to demand assistance asks A to help execute a process lawfully issued by a Court.
A is legally bound to assist but intentionally refuses.
Section 222(b) may apply.
Q48. Give an example involving prevention of an offence.
Answer:
A competent public servant lawfully demands assistance from B to prevent the commission of an offence.
B is legally bound to assist but intentionally refuses.
The aggravated clause may apply.
Q49. Give an example involving riot.
Answer:
A competent public servant demands assistance from a person legally bound to help suppress a riot.
The person deliberately refuses.
Section 222(b) may apply.
Q50. Give an example involving an escapee.
Answer:
A person escapes from lawful custody.
A competent public servant lawfully demands assistance from B in apprehending the escapee.
B is legally bound to assist but intentionally refuses.
Section 222(b) may apply.
Q51. What is the classification of Section 222(a)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q52. What is the classification of Section 222(b)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q53. Is there any difference in classification between clauses (a) and (b)?
Answer:
No.
Both are:
NON-COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q54. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
222(a) & (b) = NC + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q55. What punishment changes were made from IPC Section 187?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Clause (a)
Fine increased from:
₹200 → ₹2,500
Clause (b)
Fine increased from:
₹500 → ₹5,000
The supplied comments do not indicate a change in the imprisonment periods.
Q56. What drafting change was made?
Answer:
The expression:
“COURT OF JUSTICE”
was replaced with:
“COURT”
Q57. How does Section 222 differ from Section 223?
Answer:
Section 222
The person:
FAILS TO ASSIST
despite being legally bound to help a public servant.
Section 223
The person:
DISOBEYS A DULY PROMULGATED ORDER
and the disobedience causes or tends to cause specified harm.
Memory
222 = FAIL TO HELP
223 = DISOBEY ORDER
Q58. What is the key mens rea difference between Sections 222 and 223?
Answer:
Section 222
Requires:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
Section 223
Requires:
KNOWLEDGE OF ORDER + DISOBEDIENCE
while intent to cause the resulting harm is not necessary.
Q59. How does Section 222 differ from Section 224?
Answer:
Section 222
PERSON REFUSES LEGALLY REQUIRED ASSISTANCE
Section 224
PERSON THREATENS PUBLIC SERVANT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL ACTION
Q60. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 222?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was the accused legally bound to assist?
- Was assistance owed to a public servant?
- Did it relate to execution of public duty?
- Did the accused intentionally omit to assist?
- If clause (b) is alleged:
- Was assistance demanded?
- Was the public servant legally competent to demand it?
- Was the purpose one of the listed serious purposes?
If yes:
SECTION 222 MAY APPLY
Q61. What are the core words to remember?
Answer:
LEGAL DUTY
ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC SERVANT
PUBLIC DUTY
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
Q62. What are the special clause (b) words to remember?
Answer:
COURT PROCESS
PREVENT OFFENCE
RIOT / AFFRAY
APPREHEND OFFENDER
APPREHEND ESCAPEE
Q63. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“BOUND BY LAW TO HELP PUBLIC SERVANT + INTENTIONALLY REFUSE = SECTION 222.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Legal Duty Is Essential
Section 222 applies only where the accused is:
BOUND BY LAW
to assist.
Mere moral responsibility is insufficient.
2. Recipient of Assistance
The assistance must be furnished to:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
3. Nature of Duty
The assistance must relate to:
EXECUTION OF PUBLIC DUTY
4. Mens Rea
The omission must be:
INTENTIONAL
5. Clause (a)
General intentional failure to give legally required assistance.
Punishment:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 MONTH / ₹2,500 / BOTH
6. Clause (b)
More serious case involving a lawful demand by a competent public servant for:
- Court process;
- Prevention of offence;
- Suppression of riot;
- Suppression of affray;
- Apprehension of charged/guilty person;
- Apprehension of escapee from lawful custody.
Punishment:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS / ₹5,000 / BOTH
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
BOUND BY LAW TO ASSIST
+
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
EXECUTION OF PUBLIC DUTY
+
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
= SECTION 222
For clause (b), add:
LAWFUL DEMAND BY COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT
+
SPECIAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE
Clause (a) vs Clause (b)
Clause (a)
Think:
GENERAL FAILURE TO ASSIST
Punishment:
1 MONTH / ₹2,500
Clause (b)
Think:
FAILURE TO ASSIST IN SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT SITUATION
Purposes:
PROCESS – PREVENT – SUPPRESS – APPREHEND
Punishment:
6 MONTHS / ₹5,000
Best Clause Memory
222(a) = GENERAL DUTY
222(b) = SPECIFIC DEMAND + SERIOUS PURPOSE
Classification Notes
Both clauses:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Changes
According to the supplied comments:
Section 222 BNS = Section 187 IPC
Important BNS changes:
“COURT OF JUSTICE” → “COURT”
222(a) FINE: ₹200 → ₹2,500
222(b) FINE: ₹500 → ₹5,000
The provision has also been rearranged into clauses.
Quick Revision Notes
Section
222 BNS
Title
Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance
IPC Equivalent
Section 187 IPC
Basic Act
Intentional omission to assist.
Precondition
Person must be legally bound to assist.
Recipient
Public servant.
Purpose
Execution of public duty.
Clause (a)
General failure.
Punishment
Simple imprisonment up to 1 month / fine up to ₹2,500 / both.
Clause (b)
Demand by competent public servant for:
- Court process;
- Preventing offence;
- Suppressing riot/affray;
- Apprehending offender;
- Apprehending escapee.
Punishment
Simple imprisonment up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking anyone who refuses to help commits Section 222
Incorrect.
The person must be:
BOUND BY LAW
to assist.
Trap 2 — Confusing inability with intentional omission
The section requires:
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
Trap 3 — Forgetting the public-servant element
The assistance must be owed to a:
PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 4 — Forgetting public duty
The assistance must relate to the execution of:
PUBLIC DUTY
Trap 5 — Treating clause (a) and clause (b) as identical
Clause (b) is aggravated because it involves a legally competent demand for specified serious purposes.
Trap 6 — Forgetting that clause (b) expressly requires a demand
Remember:
222(b) = DEMANDED ASSISTANCE
Trap 7 — Forgetting legal competence
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY COMPETENT TO MAKE THE DEMAND
under clause (b).
Trap 8 — Forgetting the clause (b) list
Remember:
PROCESS – PREVENT – SUPPRESS – APPREHEND
Trap 9 — Confusing Section 222 with Section 223
222 = FAIL TO ASSIST
223 = DISOBEY ORDER
Trap 10 — Confusing the punishments
Remember:
222(a) = 1 MONTH / ₹2,500
222(b) = 6 MONTHS / ₹5,000
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 222–227
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
A useful progression is:
FAIL TO HELP → DISOBEY → THREAT OFFICIAL → BLOCK PROTECTION → COERCE OFFICIAL → GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 222
LEGAL DUTY TO ASSIST
+
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
PUBLIC DUTY
+
INTENTIONAL OMISSION
= SECTION 222
Punishment Ladder
222(a) = 1 MONTH / ₹2,500
222(b) = 6 MONTHS / ₹5,000
Clause (b) Memory
COURT PROCESS – PREVENT OFFENCE – RIOT/AFFRAY – APPREHEND OFFENDER/ESCAPEE
Key Takeaway
Section 222 BNS punishes the deliberate failure to assist a public servant where the person is legally bound to provide that assistance.
The essential foundation is:
LEGAL DUTY + INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO ASSIST
Clause (a) deals with the general offence, while clause (b) provides a higher punishment where assistance is lawfully demanded for important enforcement functions such as Court process, prevention of crime, suppression of riot or affray, or apprehension of offenders and escapees.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 222 BNS = Section 187 IPC
with the provision rearranged into clauses, the expression “Court of Justice” replaced by “Court,” and increased fines.
Final Memory Line
“222 = LEGALLY BOUND TO HELP A PUBLIC SERVANT, BUT INTENTIONALLY REFUSE.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 223: Disobedience to Order Duly Promulgated by Public Servant
Introduction
Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes knowing disobedience of a lawful order promulgated by a public servant who is legally empowered to issue that order.
The section does not punish every breach of every direction. It applies where:
- A lawful public servant promulgates an order;
- The person knows of that order;
- The order requires him either:
- To abstain from a certain act; or
- To take certain steps regarding property in his possession or under his management;
- He disobeys the order; and
- The disobedience causes, or tends to cause, one of the harmful consequences specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
The central formula is:
LAWFUL ORDER + KNOWLEDGE + DISOBEDIENCE + ACTUAL OR LIKELY HARM = SECTION 223
Q1. What does Section 223 punish?
Answer:
Section 223 punishes a person who knowingly disobeys an order duly promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to issue it, where that disobedience causes or is likely to cause specified harm.
Q2. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 223 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 223 BNS = Section 188 IPC
Q3. Has Section 223 changed under the BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The language substantially remains the same;
- The provision has been rearranged into clauses;
- The punishment under clause (a) has been increased;
- The punishment under clause (b) has also been increased.
Q4. What are the essential ingredients of Section 223?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be an order;
- The order must be promulgated by a public servant;
- The public servant must be lawfully empowered to promulgate it;
- The accused must know of the order;
- The order must direct him:
- To abstain from a certain act; or
- To take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management;
- The accused disobeys the direction;
- The disobedience causes or tends to cause one of the consequences specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
Formula
ORDER + LAWFUL AUTHORITY + KNOWLEDGE + DISOBEDIENCE + HARM/RISK = SECTION 223
Q5. What is meant by an order being “duly promulgated”?
Answer:
The order must be lawfully issued and made known in a manner recognised by law.
The section is concerned with a valid public order issued by a competent public servant.
Q6. Is every order by a public servant covered?
Answer:
No.
The public servant must be:
LAWFULLY EMPOWERED TO PROMULGATE THE ORDER
A direction issued without legal authority would not satisfy this element.
Q7. Is knowledge of the order essential?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly begins with:
“WHOEVER, KNOWING THAT…”
The accused must know that the order exists.
Q8. Is mere existence of an order sufficient?
Answer:
No.
There must be proof that the accused knew of the order and then disobeyed it.
Q9. What kind of directions may the order contain?
Answer:
The order may direct a person:
- To abstain from a certain act; or
- To take certain order regarding property in his possession or under his management.
Q10. What does “abstain from a certain act” mean?
Answer:
It means the person is legally directed:
NOT TO DO A PARTICULAR ACT
Q11. What does “take certain order with certain property” mean?
Answer:
It means the person is directed to take specified steps regarding property:
- In his possession; or
- Under his management.
For example, he may be required to secure, remove, control, preserve, or otherwise deal with property in a specified manner.
Q12. Must the property belong to the accused?
Answer:
No.
The section refers to property:
IN HIS POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS MANAGEMENT
Ownership is not expressly required.
Q13. What is the prohibited act?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAWFUL DIRECTION
Q14. Is disobedience alone enough?
Answer:
No.
The disobedience must also produce, or be likely to produce, one of the harmful consequences specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
Q15. What does clause (a) cover?
Answer:
Clause (a) applies where the disobedience:
- Causes; or
- Tends to cause
any of the following to a person lawfully employed:
- Obstruction;
- Annoyance;
- Injury;
- Risk of obstruction;
- Risk of annoyance;
- Risk of injury.
Q16. Who must suffer or be exposed to the clause (a) consequences?
Answer:
The provision refers to:
ANY PERSON LAWFULLY EMPLOYED
Q17. What is the punishment under Section 223(a)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹2,500
or
BOTH
Q18. Is the imprisonment under clause (a) simple or rigorous?
Answer:
It is expressly:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q19. What does clause (b) cover?
Answer:
Clause (b) applies where the disobedience:
- Causes; or
- Tends to cause
any of the following:
- Danger to human life;
- Danger to health;
- Danger to safety;
- Riot;
- Affray.
Q20. What is the punishment under Section 223(b)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Q21. Which clause is more serious?
Answer:
Clause (b) is more serious because it concerns:
- Human life;
- Health;
- Safety;
- Riot;
- Affray.
It therefore carries a higher maximum punishment.
Q22. What is the easiest distinction between clauses (a) and (b)?
Answer:
Clause (a)
OBSTRUCTION / ANNOYANCE / INJURY TO PERSON LAWFULLY EMPLOYED
Clause (b)
DANGER TO LIFE / HEALTH / SAFETY OR RIOT / AFFRAY
Q23. What is the punishment ladder?
Answer:
223(a) = 6 MONTHS / ₹2,500
223(b) = 1 YEAR / ₹5,000
Q24. What does the Explanation provide?
Answer:
The Explanation states that it is not necessary for the accused:
- To intend to produce harm; or
- To contemplate that his disobedience is likely to produce harm.
It is sufficient that:
- He knows of the order;
- He disobeys it; and
- The disobedience produces or is likely to produce harm.
Q25. Is intention to cause harm necessary?
Answer:
No.
This is one of the most important points in Section 223.
Memory
INTENT TO HARM NOT REQUIRED
Q26. Must the accused foresee the harm?
Answer:
No.
The Explanation expressly says that the offender need not contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm.
Q27. What mental element is essential then?
Answer:
The crucial mental element is:
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER
The accused must knowingly disobey it.
Q28. What is the difference between knowledge of the order and intention to cause harm?
Answer:
The accused must know the order exists.
But he need not intend the harmful consequence.
Memory
KNOW ORDER — NOT NECESSARILY INTEND HARM
Q29. Must actual harm occur?
Answer:
No.
The section repeatedly uses:
“CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE”
Therefore, actual harm is not always necessary.
A sufficient likelihood or tendency may be enough.
Q30. What does “tends to cause” mean?
Answer:
It means the disobedience is of a nature likely to produce the prohibited consequence, even if the consequence has not yet fully occurred.
Q31. What does the Illustration provide?
Answer:
A lawful order directs that a religious procession must not pass down a particular street.
A knows of the order but disobeys it.
His disobedience causes danger of riot.
A commits the offence under Section 223.
Q32. Which clause does the illustration most naturally illustrate?
Answer:
It most naturally illustrates:
SECTION 223(b)
because the disobedience causes danger of riot.
Q33. Why is the illustration important?
Answer:
It shows that the offence can arise even where the prohibited consequence is:
DANGER OF RIOT
Actual riot need not necessarily occur.
Q34. Must the order concern public peace?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
The provision is broad enough to cover lawful orders concerning:
- Conduct;
- Property;
- Public safety;
- Public order;
- Other matters within lawful public authority.
Q35. Can Section 223 apply to property-related directions?
Answer:
Yes.
The statute expressly covers directions requiring a person to take certain steps concerning property in his possession or management.
Q36. Must the person be personally served with the order?
Answer:
The supplied text does not state that personal service is always necessary.
The essential statutory question is whether the accused:
KNEW OF THE ORDER
Q37. Is mere ignorance of the order compatible with liability?
Answer:
If genuine lack of knowledge is established, the express knowledge requirement would not be satisfied.
Q38. Is negligence sufficient?
Answer:
Mere negligence about the existence of the order is not what the section states.
The statute requires knowledge of the order followed by disobedience.
Q39. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use “dishonestly.”
Q40. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q41. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not required.
Q42. Is motive relevant?
Answer:
Motive is not an express ingredient.
The focus is on:
KNOWLEDGE + DISOBEDIENCE + HARM OR LIKELIHOOD OF HARM
Q43. What if the person disobeys but no harm or risk whatsoever results?
Answer:
On the supplied wording, the specified harmful consequence or tendency toward such consequence is an essential part of the offence.
Mere technical disobedience without any of the consequences described in clause (a) or (b) would not satisfy those clauses.
Q44. What if the order was unlawful?
Answer:
Section 223 requires that the order be promulgated by a public servant:
LAWFULLY EMPOWERED
Therefore, lawful authority is essential.
Q45. What if the public servant had no legal power to issue that kind of order?
Answer:
Then the statutory requirement of lawful empowerment would not be satisfied.
Q46. Is the validity of the order important?
Answer:
Yes.
A lawful and duly promulgated order is the foundation of the offence.
Q47. What is the classification of Section 223(a)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q48. What is the classification of Section 223(b)?
Answer:
According to the supplied material:
COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q49. Is there any difference in classification between clauses (a) and (b)?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied classification, both are:
COGNIZABLE + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q50. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
223(a) & (b) = C + B + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q51. What changes were made from IPC Section 188?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Clause (a)
Earlier punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 1 month
- Fine up to ₹200
BNS punishment:
- Simple imprisonment up to 6 months
- Fine up to ₹2,500
Clause (b)
Earlier punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months
- Fine up to ₹1,000
BNS punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 1 year
- Fine up to ₹5,000
Q52. What is the important BNS change in Section 223?
Answer:
The major change is:
ENHANCED PUNISHMENT
The substantive structure remains substantially the same, but the penalties are higher.
Q53. What is the simplest way to remember the changes?
Answer:
223(a): 1 MONTH → 6 MONTHS; ₹200 → ₹2,500
223(b): 6 MONTHS → 1 YEAR; ₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Q54. How does Section 223 differ from Section 224?
Answer:
Section 223
The accused:
DISOBEYS A LAWFUL PUBLIC ORDER
Section 224
The accused:
THREATENS A PUBLIC SERVANT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL ACTION
Memory
223 = DISOBEY ORDER
224 = THREAT OFFICIAL
Q55. What is the common theme between Sections 223 and 224?
Answer:
Both protect lawful public authority.
But:
- Section 223 protects compliance with lawful orders;
- Section 224 protects public servants from coercive threats.
Q56. How does Section 223 differ from Section 225?
Answer:
Section 223
DISOBEDIENCE TO PUBLIC ORDER
Section 225
THREAT TO STOP PERSON SEEKING PUBLIC PROTECTION
Q57. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 223?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there an order?
- Was it duly promulgated?
- Was it issued by a public servant legally empowered to do so?
- Did the accused know of the order?
- Did the order direct abstention from an act or action concerning property?
- Did the accused disobey?
- Did the disobedience cause or tend to cause:
- Clause (a) harm; or
- Clause (b) danger/riot/affray?
If yes:
SECTION 223 MAY APPLY
Q58. What are the key words to remember?
Answer:
ORDER
PUBLIC SERVANT
LAWFULLY EMPOWERED
KNOWLEDGE
DISOBEDIENCE
HARM / RISK
Q59. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“KNOW LAWFUL ORDER + DISOBEY + CAUSE/TEND TO CAUSE HARM = SECTION 223.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Lawful Order
There must be an order promulgated by:
A PUBLIC SERVANT LAWFULLY EMPOWERED TO PROMULGATE IT
2. Knowledge
The accused must:
KNOW OF THE ORDER
3. Nature of Direction
The order may require:
ABSTAIN FROM AN ACT
or
TAKE CERTAIN STEPS WITH PROPERTY
4. Disobedience
The accused must:
DISOBEY
the lawful direction.
5. Clause (a) Consequences
OBSTRUCTION / ANNOYANCE / INJURY / RISK THEREOF
to a person lawfully employed.
6. Clause (b) Consequences
DANGER TO LIFE / HEALTH / SAFETY / RIOT / AFFRAY
7. Mens Rea
Required:
KNOWLEDGE OF ORDER
Not required:
INTENT TO CAUSE HARM
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
LAWFUL ORDER
+
KNOWLEDGE
+
DISOBEDIENCE
+
CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE SPECIFIED HARM
= SECTION 223
Punishment Notes
Section 223(a)
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 6 MONTHS
or
FINE UP TO ₹2,500
or
BOTH
Section 223(b)
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE UP TO ₹5,000
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
Both clauses are:
COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Changes
According to the supplied comments:
Section 223 BNS = Section 188 IPC
The structure has been rearranged into clauses.
The important punishment increases are:
223(a): 1 MONTH → 6 MONTHS
₹200 → ₹2,500
and:
223(b): 6 MONTHS → 1 YEAR
₹1,000 → ₹5,000
Clause (a) vs Clause (b)
Clause (a)
Think:
LOWER-LEVEL PUBLIC INTERFERENCE
Consequences:
- Obstruction;
- Annoyance;
- Injury;
- Risk thereof.
Punishment:
6 MONTHS / ₹2,500
Clause (b)
Think:
SERIOUS PUBLIC DANGER
Consequences:
- Danger to life;
- Danger to health;
- Danger to safety;
- Riot;
- Affray.
Punishment:
1 YEAR / ₹5,000
Best Clause Memory
223(a) = PERSON LAWFULLY EMPLOYED
223(b) = PUBLIC DANGER
Quick Revision Notes
Section
223 BNS
Title
Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 188 IPC
Act
Knowing disobedience of lawful order.
Authority
Public servant lawfully empowered.
Knowledge
Essential.
Direction
Abstain from act / take certain order with property.
Clause (a)
Obstruction, annoyance, injury or risk thereof to person lawfully employed.
Punishment 223(a)
Simple imprisonment up to 6 months / fine up to ₹2,500 / both.
Clause (b)
Danger to life, health or safety; riot or affray.
Punishment 223(b)
Either description up to 1 year / fine up to ₹5,000 / both.
Intent to Harm
Not necessary.
Classification
Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Forgetting knowledge
The accused must know of the order.
Trap 2 — Thinking every order of every public servant is enough
Incorrect.
The public servant must be:
LAWFULLY EMPOWERED
Trap 3 — Requiring intention to cause harm
Incorrect.
The Explanation expressly says such intention is unnecessary.
Trap 4 — Requiring actual harm
Incorrect.
It is sufficient if the disobedience:
TENDS TO CAUSE
the prohibited consequence.
Trap 5 — Confusing clause (a) and clause (b)
Remember:
(a) = OBSTRUCTION / ANNOYANCE / INJURY
(b) = LIFE / HEALTH / SAFETY / RIOT / AFFRAY
Trap 6 — Forgetting property directions
The order may concern:
PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OR UNDER MANAGEMENT
Trap 7 — Forgetting punishment type under clause (a)
Clause (a) specifically provides:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Trap 8 — Forgetting the increased BNS punishment
Remember:
6 MONTHS / ₹2,500
and
1 YEAR / ₹5,000
Trap 9 — Confusing Section 223 with Section 224
223 = DISOBEY ORDER
224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 223–227
223 = DISOBEY LAWFUL PUBLIC ORDER
224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
This creates a useful progression:
DISOBEY AUTHORITY → THREAT AUTHORITY → BLOCK ACCESS TO AUTHORITY → COERCE AUTHORITY → CORRUPT EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 223
DULY PROMULGATED LAWFUL ORDER
+
KNOWLEDGE
+
DISOBEDIENCE
+
CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE SPECIFIED HARM
= SECTION 223
Punishment Ladder
223(a) = 6 MONTHS / ₹2,500
223(b) = 1 YEAR / ₹5,000
Key Takeaway
Section 223 BNS protects the authority of lawful public orders.
The offence is not based merely on disobedience. The prosecution must establish that:
- A lawful public servant promulgated the order;
- The accused knew of it;
- The accused disobeyed it; and
- The disobedience caused or tended to cause the harm specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
A particularly important rule from the Explanation is:
THE ACCUSED NEED NOT INTEND THE HARM
It is sufficient that he:
KNOWS THE ORDER + DISOBEYS IT + THE DISOBEDIENCE CAUSES OR IS LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM
According to the supplied comments:
Section 223 BNS = Section 188 IPC
with increased punishments under both clauses.
Final Memory Line
“223 = KNOW A LAWFUL PUBLIC ORDER, DISOBEY IT, AND CAUSE OR RISK SPECIFIED HARM.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 224: Threat of Injury to Public Servant
Introduction
Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) protects public servants from threats intended to influence the way they perform their public functions.
The section applies where a person threatens:
- A public servant; or
- A person in whom the accused believes that public servant to be interested,
with the purpose of inducing the public servant to:
- Do an act;
- Forbear from doing an act; or
- Delay doing an act,
where that act is connected with the exercise of the public servant’s official functions.
The central formula is:
THREAT OF INJURY + PUBLIC SERVANT/INTERESTED PERSON + PURPOSE TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC FUNCTION = SECTION 224
Q1. What does Section 224 punish?
Answer:
Section 224 punishes a person who:
- Holds out a threat of injury;
- The threat is directed either:
- To a public servant; or
- To a person in whom the accused believes that public servant to be interested;
- The purpose is to induce the public servant to:
- Do an act;
- Forbear from doing an act; or
- Delay doing an act;
- The act must be connected with the exercise of the public servant’s public functions.
Q2. What is the object of Section 224?
Answer:
The object is to ensure that public servants are able to exercise their official functions without being subjected to threats or intimidation.
The provision protects:
- Independence of public administration;
- Proper discharge of official duties;
- Freedom of public servants from coercive pressure;
- Lawful exercise of public functions.
Core Principle
PUBLIC DUTY MUST NOT BE CONTROLLED BY THREATS
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 224 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 224 BNS = Section 189 IPC
Q4. Has Section 224 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 224?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a threat of injury;
- The threat must be directed to:
- A public servant; or
- A person in whom the accused believes the public servant to be interested;
- The threat must be made for the purpose of inducing the public servant:
- To do an act;
- To forbear from doing an act; or
- To delay doing an act;
- The act must be connected with the exercise of the public servant’s public functions.
Formula
THREAT + PUBLIC SERVANT/CONNECTED PERSON + DO/FORBEAR/DELAY + PUBLIC FUNCTION = 224
Q6. What is the prohibited act?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
HOLDING OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
Q7. Is actual injury required?
Answer:
No.
The section punishes the threat itself, provided it is made for the specified coercive purpose.
Q8. Is every threat to a public servant covered?
Answer:
No.
The threat must be made for the specific purpose of influencing an act connected with the public servant’s official functions.
A purely private threat unrelated to official duty would not fall within Section 224 merely because the victim happens to be a public servant.
Q9. To whom may the threat be directed?
Answer:
There are two possibilities:
- Directly to the public servant; or
- To a person in whom the accused believes that the public servant is interested.
Q10. Why does the section include persons in whom the public servant is interested?
Answer:
Because pressure on a public servant may be applied indirectly.
For example, a person may threaten someone close to the public servant in order to influence the servant’s official decision.
The law therefore covers both direct and indirect coercion.
Q11. Must the public servant actually be interested in that other person?
Answer:
The statutory wording focuses on a person:
“IN WHOM HE BELIEVES THAT PUBLIC SERVANT TO BE INTERESTED”
Therefore, the accused’s belief is relevant.
Q12. What does “interested” broadly mean here?
Answer:
It refers to a person whose injury the accused believes would matter to the public servant and could therefore be used as leverage.
Q13. What is the required purpose of the threat?
Answer:
The threat must be made to induce the public servant to:
DO
or
FORBEAR
or
DELAY
an act connected with his public functions.
Q14. What does “do any act” mean?
Answer:
It means to pressure the public servant into taking an official action.
Memory
DO = ACT
Q15. What does “forbear” mean?
Answer:
It means to abstain from doing an act.
Memory
FORBEAR = DON’T ACT
Q16. What does “delay” mean?
Answer:
It means to postpone an official act.
Memory
DELAY = ACT LATER
Q17. Why are “do,” “forbear,” and “delay” all included?
Answer:
Because coercion can operate in three directions:
- Force an official to act;
- Force an official not to act;
- Force an official to postpone action.
Memory
DO – DON’T – DELAY
Q18. Must the act be connected with public functions?
Answer:
Yes.
This is a central requirement.
The threatened conduct must relate to:
THE EXERCISE OF THE PUBLIC FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVANT
Q19. Is a threat concerning a private matter covered?
Answer:
No, not under this section merely because the threatened person is a public servant.
The intended influence must concern public functions.
Q20. Give a simple example of compelling action.
Answer:
A threatens a licensing officer with injury unless the officer approves A’s application.
If the threatened approval is connected with the officer’s public functions, Section 224 may apply.
Q21. Give an example of inducing forbearance.
Answer:
A threatens a public servant unless the officer stops taking lawful enforcement action.
This may amount to an attempt to induce the public servant to forbear from exercising official functions.
Q22. Give an example of inducing delay.
Answer:
A threatens an officer unless the officer postpones a lawful official action.
If the statutory ingredients are present, Section 224 may apply.
Q23. Give an example involving a person close to the public servant.
Answer:
A tells a public officer:
“If you proceed with this lawful official action, I will injure your brother.”
If A believes the officer is interested in his brother and makes the threat to influence the officer’s public function, Section 224 may apply.
Q24. Must the threat succeed?
Answer:
No.
The public servant need not actually comply.
The section focuses on the purpose for which the threat is made.
Q25. Must the public servant actually feel fear?
Answer:
The supplied wording does not separately require proof of actual fear.
The key elements are the threat and its coercive purpose.
Q26. Must the public servant actually alter his conduct?
Answer:
No express requirement of altered conduct appears.
The offence can arise even if the officer refuses to yield.
Q27. Must the threat be verbal?
Answer:
The supplied wording does not limit the threat to spoken words.
The essential point is that a threat of injury is held out.
Q28. Must the threat be made face to face?
Answer:
No such restriction appears in the supplied text.
Q29. Must the threat be made directly by the accused?
Answer:
The section is framed around the person who “holds out” the threat.
The key issue is whether the accused is responsible for communicating or conveying the threat for the prohibited purpose.
Q30. Is actual violence required?
Answer:
No.
Actual violence is not required.
The offence is complete on the threat, assuming the other ingredients are proved.
Q31. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The statute does not use the word “dishonestly.”
The controlling mental element is the purpose of inducing the public servant to act, forbear, or delay.
Q32. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q33. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not separately stated.
Q34. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
The offence may be committed even where the accused seeks no financial benefit.
Q35. Is the legality of the desired act relevant?
Answer:
The section focuses on influencing the exercise of public functions through threats.
Whether the accused is seeking an official to act, refrain, or delay, the key wrong is the coercive interference with public duty.
Q36. What if the accused asks an officer to do something lawfully but uses a threat to obtain it?
Answer:
The threat may still fall within Section 224 if its purpose is to induce the public servant to act in relation to public functions.
The section targets the coercive method, not merely the ultimate objective.
Q37. What if the public servant was already planning to perform the act?
Answer:
That does not necessarily remove liability.
The relevant question is whether the accused held out the threat for the purpose of inducing the official conduct.
Q38. What if the public servant ignores the threat completely?
Answer:
The offence may still be established because actual success is not expressly required.
Q39. What is the punishment under Section 224?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 2 YEARS
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Q40. Is there a minimum imprisonment term?
Answer:
No minimum term is stated in the supplied provision.
Q41. Is there a maximum fine specified?
Answer:
No maximum fine amount is provided in the supplied text.
Therefore, no separate fine ceiling should be invented.
Q42. What is the classification of Section 224?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Any Magistrate
Q43. Is Section 224 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q44. Is Section 224 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q45. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q46. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
224 = NC + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q47. What public interest does Section 224 protect?
Answer:
It protects the independent and lawful functioning of public administration by preventing threats from dictating official conduct.
Q48. What is the central wrong under Section 224?
Answer:
The central wrong is:
USING A THREAT OF INJURY TO CONTROL THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Q49. What is the easiest problem-question test?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there a threat of injury?
- Was it directed at a public servant or someone the accused believed the public servant was interested in?
- Was the purpose to induce the public servant to:
- Do;
- Forbear; or
- Delay an act?
- Was that act connected with public functions?
If yes:
SECTION 224 MAY APPLY
Q50. What are the key words to remember?
Answer:
THREAT
PUBLIC SERVANT
INTERESTED PERSON
DO
FORBEAR
DELAY
PUBLIC FUNCTION
Q51. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“THREATEN PUBLIC SERVANT TO CONTROL OFFICIAL ACTION = SECTION 224.”
Q52. How does Section 224 differ from Section 225?
Answer:
Section 224
The threat is used to influence:
THE PUBLIC SERVANT
directly or indirectly.
The purpose is to make the public servant:
- Do;
- Forbear; or
- Delay an official act.
Section 225
The threat is used against:
THE PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
to stop that person from approaching a competent public servant.
Memory
224 = THREAT OFFICIAL
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING HELP
Q53. How does Section 224 differ from Section 226?
Answer:
Section 224
Means of pressure:
THREAT OF INJURY
Section 226
Means of pressure:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
Both concern interference with public functions, but the method of coercion differs.
Q54. What common theme connects Sections 224–226?
Answer:
All three provisions protect the functioning of public authority from coercion.
Section 224
Threat the public servant.
Section 225
Threat the person seeking protection.
Section 226
Use suicide attempt to pressure the public servant.
Memory
224 = THREAT AUTHORITY
225 = BLOCK ACCESS TO AUTHORITY
226 = COERCE AUTHORITY BY SUICIDE ATTEMPT
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must:
HOLD OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
2. Possible Target of Threat
The threat may be directed to:
PUBLIC SERVANT
or
PERSON IN WHOM ACCUSED BELIEVES PUBLIC SERVANT IS INTERESTED
3. Specific Purpose
The purpose must be to induce the public servant to:
DO
FORBEAR
or
DELAY
an act.
4. Official Connection
The relevant act must be connected with:
EXERCISE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
5. Actual Compliance Not Required
The public servant need not yield to the threat.
The coercive purpose is the central feature.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PUBLIC SERVANT / INTERESTED PERSON
+
PURPOSE TO INDUCE
+
DO / FORBEAR / DELAY
+
PUBLIC FUNCTION
= SECTION 224
Punishment Notes
Section 224 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 2 YEARS
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
Section 224 BNS = Section 189 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Section 224 vs Section 225 vs Section 226
Section 224
THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT / INTERESTED PERSON
Purpose:
CONTROL OFFICIAL ACTION
Punishment:
UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH
Section 225
THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Purpose:
STOP LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
Punishment:
UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Section 226
ATTEMPT SUICIDE
Purpose:
COMPEL OR RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT
Punishment:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE
Best Three-Section Memory
224 = THREAT THE OFFICIAL
225 = THREAT THE APPLICANT
226 = THREAT THROUGH SELF-HARM
Quick Revision Notes
Section
224 BNS
Title
Threat of injury to public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 189 IPC
Act
Hold out threat of injury.
Target
Public servant or person in whom accused believes public servant is interested.
Purpose
Induce public servant to:
- Do;
- Forbear; or
- Delay an act.
Context
Act connected with exercise of public functions.
Actual Success
Not expressly required.
Punishment
Up to 2 years / fine / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
No substantive change stated.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Treating every threat to a public servant as Section 224
Incorrect.
The threat must be aimed at influencing the exercise of public functions.
Trap 2 — Forgetting indirect threats
The threat may be aimed at:
A PERSON IN WHOM THE ACCUSED BELIEVES THE PUBLIC SERVANT IS INTERESTED
Trap 3 — Requiring actual injury
Incorrect.
Threat alone may suffice.
Trap 4 — Requiring the public servant to comply
Incorrect.
Actual success is not expressly necessary.
Trap 5 — Forgetting “delay”
The section covers not only doing or forbearing, but also:
DELAYING OFFICIAL ACTION
Trap 6 — Confusing private and official matters
The act sought to be influenced must be connected with:
PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 224 with Section 225
Remember:
224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Trap 8 — Confusing Section 224 with Section 226
Remember:
224 = THREAT OF INJURY
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT AS COERCION
Trap 9 — Inventing a fixed fine ceiling
No maximum fine amount was supplied.
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 224–227
224 = THREAT PUBLIC SERVANT
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
This creates a useful transition:
PROTECT OFFICIAL ACTION → PROTECT ACCESS TO OFFICIAL HELP → PROTECT OFFICIALS FROM EXTREME COERCION → PROTECT TRUTH IN EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 224
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PUBLIC SERVANT / PERSON OF INTEREST
+
PURPOSE TO MAKE PUBLIC SERVANT
DO / FORBEAR / DELAY
+
ACT CONNECTED WITH PUBLIC FUNCTION
= UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH
Key Takeaway
Section 224 BNS protects public servants from threats intended to influence the exercise of their public functions.
The essence of the offence is:
THREAT OF INJURY
+ PUBLIC SERVANT OR CONNECTED PERSON
+ PURPOSE TO INDUCE DO / FORBEAR / DELAY
+ PUBLIC FUNCTION
The threat need not actually be carried out, and the public servant need not yield to the pressure.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 224 BNS = Section 189 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 2 YEARS / FINE / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“224 = THREAT A PUBLIC SERVANT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO MAKE HIM DO, NOT DO, OR DELAY AN OFFICIAL ACT.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 225: Threat of Injury to Induce Person to Refrain from Applying for Protection to Public Servant
Introduction
Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) protects a person’s right to seek lawful protection from a competent public servant.
The section punishes a person who threatens another with injury in order to stop that person from making a lawful application for protection against injury to a public servant who is legally empowered to provide, or arrange, such protection.
The central idea is:
THREAT OF INJURY + PURPOSE TO STOP LAWFUL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION = SECTION 225
Q1. What does Section 225 punish?
Answer:
Section 225 punishes a person who:
- Holds out a threat of injury to another person;
- Does so for the purpose of inducing that person:
- To refrain; or
- To desist
- from making a legal application for protection;
- The application would be made to a public servant;
- That public servant is legally empowered to provide, or cause to be provided, such protection.
Q2. What is the object of Section 225?
Answer:
The object is to ensure that a person who is entitled to seek legal protection from a competent authority is not intimidated into silence.
The section protects:
- Access to lawful protection;
- Freedom from intimidation;
- Proper functioning of public authorities;
- The right to approach a public servant for protection.
Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 225 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
Q4. Has Section 225 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 225?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be a threat of injury;
- The threat must be held out to a person;
- The purpose must be to induce that person to:
- Refrain from; or
- Desist from
- making a legal application for protection;
- The application must be for protection against injury;
- It must be intended for a public servant;
- That public servant must be legally empowered to give, or cause to be given, such protection.
Formula
THREAT OF INJURY + PURPOSE TO PREVENT LEGAL APPLICATION + COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 225
Q6. What is the prohibited act?
Answer:
The prohibited act is:
HOLDING OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
Q7. Must actual injury be caused?
Answer:
No.
The section is based on the threat, not on the actual carrying out of the threatened injury.
Q8. What does “holds out any threat of injury” mean?
Answer:
It means communicating or conveying a threat of harm to another person.
The important point is that the threat is used as pressure to stop that person from seeking lawful protection.
Q9. Is every threat covered by Section 225?
Answer:
No.
The threat must be made for the particular purpose of inducing the person:
NOT TO APPLY FOR LEGAL PROTECTION
Q10. What is the required mental element?
Answer:
The required purpose is:
TO INDUCE THE PERSON TO REFRAIN OR DESIST FROM MAKING A LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
This specific purpose is central.
Q11. What is the meaning of “refrain”?
Answer:
It means to prevent the person from making the application in the first place.
Memory
REFRAIN = DO NOT START
Q12. What is the meaning of “desist”?
Answer:
It means to cause the person to stop or abandon the process of making the application.
Memory
DESIST = STOP / GIVE UP
Q13. Why does the section use both “refrain” and “desist”?
Answer:
Because the law protects both situations:
- Preventing the person from ever approaching the authority; and
- Forcing the person to abandon or discontinue the application.
Q14. What kind of application must be involved?
Answer:
It must be a:
LEGAL APPLICATION
for protection against injury.
Q15. Is an illegal or unlawful application protected by this section?
Answer:
The text specifically refers to a:
LEGAL APPLICATION
Therefore, the application contemplated by Section 225 must itself be lawful.
Q16. What must the person be seeking protection against?
Answer:
The application must be for protection against:
ANY INJURY
Q17. Must the threatened injury and the injury against which protection is sought be the same?
Answer:
The section does not expressly require them to be identical.
The focus is on the threat being used to stop the person from seeking lawful protection against injury.
Q18. To whom must the application be made?
Answer:
The application must be intended for:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Q19. Is any public servant sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY EMPOWERED
to:
- Give the protection; or
- Cause the protection to be given.
Q20. Why is legal empowerment important?
Answer:
Because the section protects an application to an authority that lawfully has the power to provide the requested protection.
An application to a person with no legal authority to provide protection would not satisfy this element.
Q21. What does “give such protection” mean?
Answer:
It means that the public servant personally has legal authority to provide the protection sought.
Q22. What does “cause such protection to be given” mean?
Answer:
It means the public servant may not personally deliver the protection but has legal authority to arrange, direct, or procure that it be provided.
Q23. Must the victim actually refrain from applying?
Answer:
The statutory wording focuses on the threat being made:
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING
the person to refrain or desist.
Actual success is not expressly required.
Q24. What if the threatened person ignores the threat and still applies for protection?
Answer:
Section 225 may still be relevant if the threat was made with the required purpose.
The failure of the threat does not necessarily remove the offence.
Q25. What if the person has already made the application?
Answer:
The word “desist” suggests that threatening conduct aimed at making the person stop or abandon the protective process may still fall within the section, depending on the facts.
Q26. Must the threat be made directly to the person seeking protection?
Answer:
The section refers to a threat held out to:
ANY PERSON
for the purpose of inducing that person not to seek protection.
The essential link is between the threat and the intended prevention of the legal application.
Q27. Must the threat be written?
Answer:
No such requirement appears.
The section is broad enough to cover threats communicated in different forms.
Q28. Must the threat be made in person?
Answer:
No.
The supplied text does not limit the threat to face-to-face communication.
Q29. Must the public servant know about the threat?
Answer:
No express requirement to that effect appears.
The offence focuses on the threatener’s conduct and purpose.
Q30. Must the application actually reach the public servant?
Answer:
No.
The section protects the right to make the application itself.
A threat intended to prevent the application may be sufficient even before any application reaches the authority.
Q31. Must protection actually be granted?
Answer:
No.
The offence is concerned with obstructing access to lawful protection, not with whether protection was ultimately granted.
Q32. Give a simple example.
Answer:
A threatens B with injury if B reports ongoing threats to a police officer who is legally empowered to provide protection.
A intends to stop B from making that lawful application.
Section 225 may apply.
Q33. Give an example involving desisting from an application.
Answer:
B has begun seeking protection from a competent authority.
A threatens B with injury unless B withdraws or abandons the request.
If the statutory ingredients are satisfied, Section 225 may apply.
Q34. What if A merely advises B not to apply?
Answer:
Advice alone is not enough.
There must be:
A THREAT OF INJURY
Q35. What if A offers B money not to apply?
Answer:
Section 225 specifically concerns:
THREAT OF INJURY
A purely financial inducement without a threat would not fall within this section on that basis alone.
Q36. Is actual fear necessary?
Answer:
The section focuses on the threat and its purpose.
It does not separately state that the victim must actually experience fear.
Q37. Is success in intimidation necessary?
Answer:
No express requirement of success appears.
The purpose of the threat is the key point.
Q38. Is dishonest intention required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use “dishonestly.”
The relevant mental element is the specific purpose of preventing or stopping the lawful protective application.
Q39. Is fraudulent intention required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q40. Is malicious intention required?
Answer:
No.
The statute does not separately require malice.
Q41. Is financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
No financial benefit is necessary.
Q42. Is actual physical violence required?
Answer:
No.
A threat of injury is sufficient if all the statutory ingredients are present.
Q43. What is the punishment under Section 225?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Q44. Is there a minimum sentence?
Answer:
No minimum imprisonment is stated in the supplied provision.
Q45. Is there a maximum fine specified?
Answer:
No maximum fine amount is supplied in the text provided.
Therefore, no separate fine ceiling should be invented.
Q46. What is the classification of Section 225?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Any Magistrate
Q47. Is Section 225 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q48. Is Section 225 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q49. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q50. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
225 = NC + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q51. What right does Section 225 effectively protect?
Answer:
It protects the ability of a person to:
SEEK LAWFUL PROTECTION FROM COMPETENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITHOUT INTIMIDATION
Q52. Is the section about protecting the public servant?
Answer:
Indirectly, yes, but its immediate focus is protecting the person who wishes to apply for protection.
The section prevents a wrongdoer from cutting off access to lawful public assistance through threats.
Q53. What public interest does Section 225 protect?
Answer:
It supports:
- Access to legal protection;
- Proper discharge of official protective functions;
- Freedom from intimidation;
- Prevention of private coercion defeating public justice.
Q54. How does Section 225 differ from Section 226?
Answer:
Section 225
The accused:
THREATENS ANOTHER PERSON
to prevent that person from applying to a public servant for protection.
Section 226
The accused:
ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT SUICIDE
to compel or restrain a public servant in the discharge of official duty.
Memory
225 = THREAT VICTIM
226 = PRESSURE PUBLIC SERVANT
Q55. What is the common theme between Sections 225 and 226?
Answer:
Both protect lawful public authority from coercive interference.
But the direction of pressure differs:
Section 225
Pressure is applied to:
THE PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Section 226
Pressure is applied to:
THE PUBLIC SERVANT
Q56. What is the easiest comparison between Sections 225 and 226?
Answer:
225 = STOP SOMEONE FROM GOING TO AUTHORITY
226 = FORCE AUTHORITY TO ACT OR STOP ACTING
Q57. What is the easiest problem-question test for Section 225?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there a threat of injury?
- Was it made to induce someone to refrain or desist?
- Was the person being stopped from making a legal application for protection?
- Was the intended application to a public servant?
- Was that public servant legally empowered to provide or arrange protection?
If yes:
SECTION 225 MAY APPLY
Q58. What are the core words to remember?
Answer:
THREAT
INJURY
REFRAIN / DESIST
LEGAL APPLICATION
PROTECTION
PUBLIC SERVANT
Q59. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“THREATEN SOMEONE SO THEY DO NOT SEEK LEGAL PROTECTION = SECTION 225.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Prohibited Conduct
The accused must:
HOLD OUT A THREAT OF INJURY
2. Specific Purpose
The threat must be intended to make the person:
REFRAIN
or
DESIST
from making the protective application.
3. Nature of Application
It must be:
A LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY
4. Recipient of Application
The application must be intended for:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
5. Legal Competence
The public servant must be legally empowered:
TO GIVE PROTECTION
or
TO CAUSE PROTECTION TO BE GIVEN
6. Actual Prevention Not Expressly Required
The threat need not necessarily succeed.
The purpose of inducing restraint or abandonment is central.
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PURPOSE TO INDUCE REFRAIN/DESIST
+
LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
+
PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY EMPOWERED
= SECTION 225
Punishment Notes
Section 225 provides:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Equivalent and BNS Position
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Section 225 vs Section 226
Section 225
THREAT TO STOP PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
Direction of pressure
Toward the person seeking help.
Section 226
SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT
Direction of pressure
Toward the public servant.
Memory
225 = BLOCK ACCESS TO AUTHORITY
226 = COERCE AUTHORITY ITSELF
Quick Revision Notes
Section
225 BNS
Title
Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant
IPC Equivalent
Section 190 IPC
Act
Threat of injury.
Purpose
Cause person to refrain or desist.
From What?
Making legal application for protection against injury.
To Whom?
Public servant legally empowered to provide or arrange protection.
Actual Success
Not expressly required.
Punishment
Up to 1 year / fine / both.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
BNS Change
No substantive change stated.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking every threat falls under Section 225
Incorrect.
The purpose must be to stop a lawful protective application.
Trap 2 — Forgetting “legal application”
The application must be lawful.
Trap 3 — Forgetting protection against injury
The application must be for:
PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY
Trap 4 — Forgetting public servant competence
The public servant must be:
LEGALLY EMPOWERED
to provide or arrange the protection.
Trap 5 — Requiring actual injury
Incorrect.
Threat is enough if the other ingredients are present.
Trap 6 — Requiring actual success
Incorrect.
The section focuses on the purpose of inducing the person to refrain or desist.
Trap 7 — Confusing Section 225 with Section 226
Remember:
225 = THREAT PERSON SEEKING HELP
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO PRESSURE PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 8 — Thinking only “refrain” matters
Remember both:
REFRAIN = DO NOT START
DESIST = STOP / ABANDON
Trap 9 — Thinking any official is enough
No.
The official must be legally empowered to provide or arrange the requested protection.
Rapid Revision Link: Sections 225–227
225 = THREAT TO STOP PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
This creates a useful transition:
PROTECT ACCESS TO AUTHORITY → PROTECT AUTHORITY FROM COERCION → PROTECT TRUTH IN EVIDENCE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 225
THREAT OF INJURY
+
PURPOSE TO MAKE PERSON REFRAIN OR DESIST
+
LEGAL APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION
+
PUBLIC SERVANT LEGALLY EMPOWERED TO PROTECT
= UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
Key Takeaway
Section 225 BNS protects a person’s ability to seek lawful protection from a competent public servant without intimidation.
The essence of the offence is:
THREAT OF INJURY
+ PURPOSE TO STOP THE PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION
+ LEGAL APPLICATION
+ COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT
The offender need not actually injure the person or successfully prevent the application. The critical feature is the use of a threat for the prohibited purpose.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 225 BNS = Section 190 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
The punishment is:
IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“225 = THREATEN A PERSON SO THAT THEY DO NOT SEEK LAWFUL PROTECTION FROM A COMPETENT PUBLIC SERVANT.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 226: Attempt to Commit Suicide to Compel or Restrain Exercise of Lawful Power
Introduction
Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) creates a new offence dealing with an attempt to commit suicide when that attempt is used as a means of coercing a public servant.
The section does not punish every suicide attempt. Its focus is much narrower.
The offence arises where a person attempts to commit suicide:
- With the intention of compelling a public servant to act; or
- With the intention of restraining a public servant from acting,
in relation to the discharge of that public servant’s official duty.
The central formula is:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE + INTENT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN PUBLIC SERVANT IN OFFICIAL DUTY = SECTION 226
Q1. What does Section 226 punish?
Answer:
Section 226 punishes a person who:
- Attempts to commit suicide; and
- Does so with the intention of compelling or restraining a public servant from discharging his official duty.
Q2. What is the object of Section 226?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the object is to prevent suicide attempts from being used as a means of:
- Coercion;
- Pressure;
- Manipulation;
- Interference with lawful authority.
The provision seeks to protect public servants from being forced to alter or abandon official duties because of extreme personal pressure tactics.
Q3. Is Section 226 an old IPC provision?
Answer:
No.
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 226 IS A NEW OFFENCE UNDER THE BNS
It has no corresponding IPC provision identified in the supplied material.
Q4. What are the essential ingredients of Section 226?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be an attempt to commit suicide;
- The attempt must be intentional;
- The accused must have the specific intent to:
- Compel; or
- Restrain
- a public servant;
- The public servant must be concerned with the discharge of official duty.
Formula
SUICIDE ATTEMPT + SPECIFIC INTENT + PUBLIC SERVANT + OFFICIAL DUTY = SECTION 226
Q5. Does every attempt to commit suicide fall under Section 226?
Answer:
No.
This is a very important distinction.
Section 226 applies only when the attempt is made:
WITH INTENT TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN A PUBLIC SERVANT
A suicide attempt for purely personal reasons, without this coercive purpose, does not fall within Section 226 merely because it is an attempt to commit suicide.
Q6. What is the key mens rea under Section 226?
Answer:
The key mental element is:
INTENT TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN
the public servant in the discharge of official duty.
Q7. Is negligence enough?
Answer:
No.
The section is based on a specific intentional purpose.
Q8. Is mere emotional distress enough?
Answer:
No.
The supplied wording requires a deliberate intention to influence the public servant’s official conduct.
Q9. What does “compel” mean in this context?
Answer:
It means to pressure or force the public servant to do something in his official capacity which the person wishes him to do.
Q10. What does “restrain” mean?
Answer:
It means to pressure the public servant:
- Not to act;
- To stop acting;
- To postpone action;
- To abandon an official duty.
Q11. What is the difference between compelling and restraining?
Answer:
Compel
MAKE THE PUBLIC SERVANT DO SOMETHING
Restrain
MAKE THE PUBLIC SERVANT NOT DO SOMETHING
Memory
COMPEL = DO
RESTRAIN = DON’T DO
Q12. Must the public servant actually be influenced?
Answer:
The supplied text focuses on the accused’s intent.
Therefore, actual success in influencing the public servant is not expressly required.
Q13. Must the public servant actually stop performing his duty?
Answer:
No express requirement of actual stoppage appears in the provision.
The offence centres on:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE + INTENT TO COMPEL/RESTRAIN
Q14. Must the public servant actually perform the demanded act?
Answer:
No.
Actual compliance is not expressly required.
Q15. Why is specific intent so important here?
Answer:
Because the same physical act may have very different legal meanings depending on the purpose behind it.
A suicide attempt without any intention to influence public authority is not the same as a suicide attempt deliberately used as pressure against a public servant.
Q16. Does Section 226 require the public servant’s duty to be official?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly refers to:
DISCHARGING HIS OFFICIAL DUTY
Thus, the pressure must relate to the public servant’s official function.
Q17. Is a purely private dispute with a public servant enough?
Answer:
No.
The section is concerned with interference in:
OFFICIAL DUTY
not merely private interactions with someone who happens to be a public servant.
Q18. Must the public servant’s duty be lawful?
Answer:
The title refers to compelling or restraining the exercise of lawful power, and the supplied comments emphasise interference with lawful authority.
Thus, the provision is aimed at coercive pressure directed against the lawful exercise of official power.
Q19. What example is given in the supplied comments?
Answer:
The supplied comments give the example of a person who attempts to set himself on fire in front of a government office in order to pressure authorities:
- To grant an illegal benefit; or
- To stop a lawful eviction.
Such conduct may fall under Section 226.
Q20. Why does the self-immolation example fall within Section 226?
Answer:
Because the act is allegedly being used as a coercive tool to influence official action.
The critical point is not only the suicide attempt, but the purpose behind it.
Q21. Give a simple example of compelling a public servant.
Answer:
A threatens and then attempts self-harm in front of a government office, intending to force an officer to approve an application that the officer is lawfully refusing.
If the statutory ingredients are satisfied, Section 226 may apply.
Q22. Give a simple example of restraining a public servant.
Answer:
A attempts to commit suicide in order to force an officer to stop carrying out a lawful demolition or eviction order.
This may amount to an attempt to restrain the officer from discharging official duty.
Q23. What if the person merely protests peacefully?
Answer:
Peaceful protest is not the same as attempting to commit suicide.
Section 226 specifically requires:
AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
Q24. What if a person threatens suicide but makes no attempt?
Answer:
On the supplied wording, Section 226 requires an:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
A mere threat, without an attempt, would not satisfy that element of this section.
Q25. What if a person makes an attempt but does not communicate any demand?
Answer:
The prosecution would still need to establish the required intention to compel or restrain a public servant.
The intention may potentially be inferred from surrounding circumstances, but it cannot simply be assumed from the attempt itself.
Q26. Must the attempt occur in front of the public servant?
Answer:
The supplied wording does not expressly require physical presence before the public servant.
The key question is whether the attempt was made with the specific intent to compel or restrain that public servant.
Q27. Must the attempt be public?
Answer:
No such express requirement appears in the supplied text.
Q28. Must the accused leave a note or message?
Answer:
No.
There is no express requirement of a written demand.
However, the required intent must still be proved from the available circumstances.
Q29. Is actual injury required?
Answer:
No express requirement of actual injury appears in the section.
The offence is based on:
ATTEMPT
rather than completion.
Q30. Is death required?
Answer:
No.
By definition, Section 226 concerns an:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
Q31. Is actual suicide covered by Section 226?
Answer:
The supplied text specifically deals with an attempt.
The offence is therefore framed around a person who survives the attempt and whose conduct can be prosecuted.
Q32. Is motive such as financial gain required?
Answer:
No.
The specific purpose is:
TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN A PUBLIC SERVANT
No financial motive is required.
Q33. Is malice required?
Answer:
No.
Malice is not expressly stated as an ingredient.
Q34. Is dishonesty required?
Answer:
No.
The section does not use the term “dishonestly.”
The key mens rea is the coercive intention.
Q35. Is fraud required?
Answer:
No.
Fraud is not an express ingredient.
Q36. What is the punishment under Section 226?
Answer:
The offender may be punished with:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
or
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Q37. Is imprisonment rigorous or simple?
Answer:
The provision expressly states:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
Q38. What is the maximum term of imprisonment?
Answer:
1 YEAR
Q39. Is there a specified maximum fine in the supplied text?
Answer:
No specific fine ceiling is supplied.
Therefore, no separate maximum amount should be invented.
Q40. Is community service available?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 226 expressly provides:
COMMUNITY SERVICE
as one of the possible punishments.
Q41. Why is community service noteworthy?
Answer:
Because it gives the Court an alternative to imprisonment or fine in an appropriate case.
For examination purposes, remember that Section 226 expressly includes community service.
Q42. What is the classification of Section 226?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
- Non-Cognizable
- Bailable
- Any Magistrate
Q43. Is Section 226 cognizable?
Answer:
No.
NON-COGNIZABLE
Q44. Is Section 226 bailable?
Answer:
Yes.
BAILABLE
Q45. Which Court may try the offence?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification:
ANY MAGISTRATE
Q46. What is the easiest classification memory?
Answer:
226 = NC + BAILABLE + ANY MAGISTRATE
Q47. Is Section 226 an offence against the public servant personally?
Answer:
Not merely in a personal sense.
The deeper concern is protection of:
OFFICIAL DUTY AND LAWFUL PUBLIC AUTHORITY
The provision seeks to prevent extreme pressure from distorting the exercise of official power.
Q48. What public interest does Section 226 protect?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, it protects:
- Sanctity of lawful authority;
- Uninterrupted discharge of official duties;
- Freedom of public servants from extreme coercive pressure;
- Orderly administration of government functions.
Q49. What is the central wrong under Section 226?
Answer:
The central wrong is:
USING A SUICIDE ATTEMPT AS A TOOL OF COERCION AGAINST PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Q50. Does Section 226 criminalise a person’s emotional state?
Answer:
No.
The statutory focus is conduct plus specific intent.
The offence is not established merely because a person is distressed or suicidal.
Q51. What must the prosecution particularly prove?
Answer:
The prosecution must establish the connection between:
- The suicide attempt; and
- The intention to compel or restrain the public servant.
Memory
ATTEMPT + COERCIVE PURPOSE
Q52. Why is the causal or purposive link important?
Answer:
Because without that link, the act may fall outside Section 226.
The prosecution cannot simply infer Section 226 from the fact that a suicide attempt occurred near a government office.
Q53. What if a person attempts suicide because of frustration with a government decision but does not intend to influence any officer?
Answer:
On the supplied wording, Section 226 would require proof of an intention to compel or restrain a public servant.
Mere frustration with a decision, without that specific purpose, is not the same thing.
Q54. What if the person’s purpose is to force an illegal favour?
Answer:
That fits closely with the example supplied in the commentary.
If a person attempts suicide specifically to pressure an officer into granting an illegal benefit, Section 226 may apply.
Q55. What if the person’s purpose is to stop a lawful eviction?
Answer:
Again, the supplied comments expressly use this as an example.
If the suicide attempt is intended to prevent officials from carrying out the lawful eviction, the offence may be attracted.
Q56. Is the section limited to government offices?
Answer:
No.
The statute refers broadly to:
ANY PUBLIC SERVANT
The location is not the defining element.
Q57. Must the public servant be named or specifically identified?
Answer:
The supplied text does not expressly require naming the individual, but the prosecution must establish that the attempt was intended to compel or restrain a public servant in relation to official duty.
Q58. What is the easiest problem-question test?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was there an attempt to commit suicide?
- Was the act done with a specific intention?
- Was that intention to compel or restrain a public servant?
- Was the pressure connected with the public servant’s official duty?
If yes:
SECTION 226 MAY APPLY
Q59. What are the four key words to remember?
Answer:
ATTEMPT
SUICIDE
COMPEL / RESTRAIN
PUBLIC SERVANT
Q60. What is the shortest memory formula?
Answer:
“SUICIDE ATTEMPT USED TO PRESSURE PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 226.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Offence
Section 226 is a:
NEW BNS OFFENCE
according to the supplied comments.
2. Act
The accused must:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
3. Specific Intention
The purpose must be:
TO COMPEL
or
TO RESTRAIN
a public servant.
4. Official-Duty Requirement
The coercion must relate to:
DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY
5. Actual Success Not Expressly Required
The public servant need not actually yield to the pressure.
The provision centres on the accused’s intent.
6. Mere Suicide Attempt Is Not Enough
There must be:
COERCIVE INTENT TOWARD PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Essential Ingredients — Rapid Recall
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
+
INTENT
+
COMPEL OR RESTRAIN
+
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
OFFICIAL DUTY
= SECTION 226
Punishment Notes
Section 226 provides four possible forms of punishment:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR
or
FINE
or
BOTH
or
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Memory
1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE
Classification Notes
According to the supplied material:
NON-COGNIZABLE
BAILABLE
ANY MAGISTRATE
IPC Position
According to the supplied comments:
NO IPC EQUIVALENT — NEW BNS OFFENCE
Section 226 — Conceptual Distinction
The provision should not be remembered as:
“ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE = OFFENCE”
That is too broad.
The correct formulation is:
“ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING A PUBLIC SERVANT = SECTION 226.”
This specific-purpose element is the heart of the section.
Quick Revision Notes
Section
226 BNS
Title
Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power
Nature
New BNS offence.
Act
Attempt to commit suicide.
Mens Rea
Intent to compel or restrain.
Target
Public servant.
Context
Discharge of official duty.
Actual Compliance
Not expressly required.
Punishment
Simple imprisonment up to 1 year / fine / both / community service.
Classification
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking every suicide attempt falls under Section 226
Incorrect.
The special intent to influence a public servant is essential.
Trap 2 — Forgetting the public-servant element
The pressure must be directed toward:
A PUBLIC SERVANT
Trap 3 — Forgetting official duty
The coercion must concern:
OFFICIAL DUTY
not merely a private interaction.
Trap 4 — Requiring actual success
Incorrect.
The public servant need not actually comply.
Trap 5 — Requiring actual death
Incorrect.
The section concerns an:
ATTEMPT
Trap 6 — Treating a mere threat of suicide as enough
The supplied wording requires an actual:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
Trap 7 — Forgetting both verbs
Remember:
COMPEL
or
RESTRAIN
Either may satisfy the section.
Trap 8 — Confusing punishment type
The imprisonment is:
SIMPLE
not rigorous.
Trap 9 — Forgetting community service
Section 226 expressly includes:
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Trap 10 — Inventing an IPC equivalent
According to the supplied comments:
THIS IS A NEW BNS OFFENCE
Rapid Revision Link: Section 226 to Chapter XIV
Section 226 precedes Chapter XIV.
The sequence can therefore be remembered as:
226 = COERCE PUBLIC SERVANT BY SUICIDE ATTEMPT
then:
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
228 = FABRICATE FALSE EVIDENCE
229 = PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE
This creates a useful transition from protection of lawful public authority into the false-evidence chapter.
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 226
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
+
INTENT TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN
+
PUBLIC SERVANT
+
DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY
= UP TO 1 YEAR SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE
Key Takeaway
Section 226 BNS does not criminalise every suicide attempt. It targets the use of a suicide attempt as a coercive instrument against public authority.
The essence of the offence is:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
+ SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN
+ PUBLIC SERVANT
+ OFFICIAL DUTY
According to the supplied comments, Section 226 is a new offence introduced by the BNS and is aimed at preventing extreme coercive tactics from interfering with lawful official action.
Its punishment is:
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT UP TO 1 YEAR / FINE / BOTH / COMMUNITY SERVICE
and the offence is:
Non-Cognizable + Bailable + Triable by Any Magistrate
Final Memory Line
“226 = SUICIDE ATTEMPT USED AS PRESSURE TO MAKE A PUBLIC SERVANT ACT OR STOP ACTING.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Chapter XIV: Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice
Introduction
Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with offences which threaten the integrity of evidence, judicial proceedings, lawful investigation, Court processes, punishment of offenders, and the proper functioning of public justice.
According to the supplied introduction, the Chapter contains 43 sections, from Sections 227 to 269.
The chapter broadly covers two major areas:
1. FALSE EVIDENCE
and
2. OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
The supplied introduction states that:
- Sections 227 to 237 principally concern giving and fabricating false evidence; and
- Sections 238 onwards principally concern offences against public justice.
The Chapter can therefore be understood as protecting the justice system at every stage:
TRUTH → EVIDENCE → INVESTIGATION → COURT PROCESS → OFFENDERS → PUBLIC SERVANTS → CUSTODY → APPEARANCE BEFORE COURT
Q1. What is the title of Chapter XIV?
Answer:
OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
Q2. Which sections are contained in Chapter XIV?
Answer:
According to the supplied introduction:
SECTIONS 227 TO 269
This gives a total of:
43 SECTIONS
Q3. What are the two broad subjects covered by Chapter XIV?
Answer:
The Chapter covers:
- False evidence; and
- Offences against public justice.
Q4. What is the general object of this Chapter?
Answer:
The object is to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the administration of justice.
The Chapter punishes conduct which may:
- Corrupt evidence;
- Mislead Courts;
- Obstruct investigation;
- Screen offenders;
- Harbour offenders;
- Abuse Court processes;
- Interfere with apprehension or custody;
- Corruptly misuse official authority; or
- Defeat lawful Court obligations.
Q5. Why is false evidence treated seriously?
Answer:
Courts and public authorities depend upon truthful evidence to reach correct conclusions.
False evidence may:
- Cause wrongful conviction;
- Cause wrongful acquittal;
- Distort civil liability;
- Mislead public authorities;
- Undermine trust in judicial proceedings.
Thus, the chapter treats false evidence as an offence against the justice system itself.
Q6. Which sections principally deal with giving and fabricating false evidence?
Answer:
According to the supplied introduction:
SECTIONS 227 TO 237
The supplied classification also includes:
SECTION 241
within this broad sub-head because Section 241 deals with destruction of a document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence.
Q7. What is the basic sequence of Sections 227 to 237?
Answer:
The sequence can be remembered as follows:
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
228 = FABRICATE FALSE EVIDENCE
229 = PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE
230 = FALSE EVIDENCE FOR CAPITAL CONVICTION
231 = FALSE EVIDENCE FOR SERIOUS NON-CAPITAL CONVICTION
232 = THREATEN PERSON TO GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
233 = USE FALSE EVIDENCE
234 = ISSUE FALSE CERTIFICATE
235 = USE FALSE CERTIFICATE
236 = MAKE FALSE DECLARATION
237 = USE FALSE DECLARATION
Q8. What does Section 227 principally concern?
Answer:
Section 227 defines:
GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
Its essence is:
LEGAL DUTY TO SPEAK TRUTH + FALSE STATEMENT + REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF
Q9. What does Section 228 principally concern?
Answer:
Section 228 defines:
FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE
Its essence is:
CREATE FALSE EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL + INTEND IT TO APPEAR IN EVIDENCE + INTEND TO MISLEAD ON MATERIAL POINT
Q10. What does Section 229 do?
Answer:
Section 229 provides the general punishment for intentionally:
- Giving false evidence; or
- Fabricating false evidence.
It distinguishes between:
- Judicial proceedings; and
- Other cases.
Memory
229 = PUNISHMENT SECTION
Q11. What do Sections 230 and 231 deal with?
Answer:
These are aggravated false-evidence provisions.
Section 230
False evidence intended to procure conviction for a:
CAPITAL OFFENCE
Section 231
False evidence intended to procure conviction for a serious:
NON-CAPITAL OFFENCE PUNISHABLE WITH LIFE OR 7+ YEARS
Q12. What does Section 232 deal with?
Answer:
Section 232 punishes:
THREATENING ANY PERSON TO GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
It therefore protects witnesses and other persons from coercion designed to corrupt the truth-finding process.
Q13. What does Section 233 deal with?
Answer:
Section 233 punishes:
CORRUPTLY USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE FALSE OR FABRICATED EVIDENCE AS TRUE OR GENUINE
Q14. What is the significance of Sections 234 and 235?
Answer:
These sections form the:
FALSE CERTIFICATE PAIR
Section 234
ISSUE OR SIGN FALSE CERTIFICATE
Section 235
USE FALSE CERTIFICATE AS TRUE
Q15. What is the significance of Sections 236 and 237?
Answer:
These sections form the:
FALSE DECLARATION PAIR
Section 236
MAKE FALSE DECLARATION
Section 237
USE FALSE DECLARATION AS TRUE
Q16. What does Section 241 add to the evidence-related offences?
Answer:
Section 241 deals with:
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD TO PREVENT ITS PRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE
It therefore protects evidence not merely from falsification, but also from deliberate suppression or destruction.
Q17. Which sections concern disappearance of evidence and screening offenders?
Answer:
According to the supplied introduction:
SECTIONS 238 TO 240
Q18. What is the basic sequence of Sections 238 to 240?
Answer:
238 = CAUSE DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE / GIVE FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN
239 = INTENTIONALLY OMIT INFORMATION WHEN LEGALLY BOUND TO INFORM
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT AN OFFENCE COMMITTED
Memory
238 = SCREEN
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
Q19. What is the central idea of Section 238?
Answer:
Section 238 targets a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed:
- Causes evidence to disappear; or
- Gives false information,
with the:
INTENTION OF SCREENING THE OFFENDER FROM LEGAL PUNISHMENT
Q20. How is Section 239 different from Section 240?
Answer:
Section 239
The person:
SHOULD INFORM BUT INTENTIONALLY REMAINS SILENT
because he is legally bound to give information.
Section 240
The person:
GIVES INFORMATION, BUT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE
Memory
239 = SILENCE
240 = FALSE SPEECH
Q21. Which provisions concern abuse of Court process according to the supplied introduction?
Answer:
The supplied introduction identifies:
SECTIONS 243 TO 248 AND SECTION 269
under the broad heading of:
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT
Q22. What types of conduct fall within Sections 243 to 248?
Answer:
These provisions broadly address dishonest or fraudulent interference with judicial and enforcement processes, including:
- Concealing or transferring property to defeat lawful seizure;
- Making fraudulent claims to property;
- Fraudulently allowing false decrees;
- Making false claims in Court;
- Fraudulently obtaining decrees;
- Making false criminal charges.
Q23. What does Section 243 deal with?
Answer:
Section 243 concerns:
FRAUDULENT REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, TRANSFER OR DELIVERY OF PROPERTY
with intent to prevent lawful taking by forfeiture, fine, or execution.
Q24. What does Section 244 deal with?
Answer:
Section 244 concerns:
FRAUDULENT FALSE CLAIM TO PROPERTY OR INTEREST
with intent to prevent lawful seizure or execution.
Memory
243 = MOVE/HIDE PROPERTY
244 = FALSELY CLAIM PROPERTY
Q25. What do Sections 245 to 247 principally concern?
Answer:
They deal with fraudulent abuse of civil Court process.
Section 245
SUFFER FALSE DECREE AGAINST SELF
Section 246
MAKE FALSE CLAIM IN COURT
Section 247
OBTAIN FALSE DECREE AGAINST ANOTHER
Memory
245 = SUFFER
246 = CLAIM
247 = OBTAIN
Q26. What does Section 248 deal with?
Answer:
Section 248 punishes:
FALSE CHARGE OF OFFENCE MADE WITH INTENT TO INJURE
It is therefore concerned with misuse of criminal process by knowingly instituting or causing a false criminal accusation without lawful ground.
Q27. What role does Section 269 play in the supplied abuse-of-process classification?
Answer:
Section 269 deals with:
FAILURE BY PERSON RELEASED ON BAIL BOND OR BOND TO APPEAR IN COURT
The supplied introduction places it within the broad abuse-of-Court-process grouping because it concerns non-compliance with a formal obligation to appear before Court.
Q28. Which section is identified under false personation?
Answer:
The supplied introduction identifies:
SECTION 242
and also mentions:
SECTION 248
under the heading “False personation.”
However, this appears to contain a classification inconsistency in the supplied introduction because Section 248, as separately studied, concerns false charge of offence made with intent to injure, whereas Section 242 is the provision specifically dealing with false personation in a suit or prosecution.
For revision, the clear personation provision is:
SECTION 242
Q29. What does Section 242 deal with?
Answer:
Section 242 punishes:
FALSE PERSONATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ACT OR PROCEEDING IN A SUIT OR PROSECUTION
The accused assumes another identity and performs a legal act in that assumed character.
Q30. Which provisions concern harbouring offenders?
Answer:
According to the supplied introduction:
SECTIONS 249, 253 AND 254
Q31. What does Section 249 deal with?
Answer:
Section 249 concerns:
HARBOURING OR CONCEALING AN OFFENDER AFTER AN OFFENCE
with knowledge or reason to believe that the person is an offender and with intent to screen him from legal punishment.
Memory
249 = HIDE OFFENDER AFTER CRIME
Q32. What does Section 253 deal with?
Answer:
Section 253 concerns harbouring or concealing:
- A person who has escaped from lawful custody; or
- A person whose lawful apprehension has been ordered.
Memory
253 = ESCAPEE / APPREHENSION ORDER
Q33. What does Section 254 deal with?
Answer:
Section 254 concerns:
HARBOURING ROBBERS OR DACOITS
either to facilitate robbery or dacoity or to screen them from punishment.
Memory
254 = ROBBERS / DACOITS
Q34. Which provisions concern offences by public servants according to the supplied introduction?
Answer:
The supplied introduction identifies:
SECTIONS 255 TO 268
as the broad group concerning offences by public servants.
Q35. What kind of public-servant misconduct is covered in Sections 255 onwards?
Answer:
These provisions broadly address misuse or failure of official powers connected with justice, including:
- Disobeying law to save persons or property;
- Preparing incorrect records;
- Corrupt or malicious judicial acts;
- Illegal commitment or confinement;
- Intentional failure to apprehend;
- Negligent escape from custody;
- Resistance to lawful apprehension;
- Failure to keep persons in confinement;
- Misconduct connected with judicial proceedings.
Q36. What do Sections 255 and 256 deal with?
Answer:
Section 255
A public servant:
KNOWINGLY DISOBEYS A LEGAL DIRECTION
with intent to save a person from punishment, reduce punishment, or save property.
Section 256
A public servant:
KNOWINGLY PREPARES AN INCORRECT RECORD OR WRITING
with intent or knowledge to cause harm or save a person/property.
Memory
255 = DISOBEY LAW
256 = FALSE RECORD
Q37. What do Sections 257 and 258 principally concern?
Answer:
Section 257
A public servant in a judicial proceeding corruptly or maliciously makes:
- Report;
- Order;
- Verdict; or
- Decision
knowing it to be contrary to law.
Section 258
A person having legal authority corruptly or maliciously:
- Commits another for trial;
- Commits another to confinement; or
- Keeps another in confinement,
knowing the act to be contrary to law.
Q38. What broad theme runs through Sections 259 to 265?
Answer:
These sections concern:
APPREHENSION, CUSTODY, ESCAPE AND RESCUE
They allocate liability according to:
- Who had the legal duty;
- Whether conduct was intentional or negligent;
- Whether the offender was charged, sentenced, or lawfully committed;
- Whether the accused resisted, escaped, obstructed or rescued.
Q39. What is the easiest memory sequence for Sections 259 to 265?
Answer:
259 = PUBLIC SERVANT INTENTIONALLY FAILS — CHARGED/APPREHENDABLE PERSON
260 = PUBLIC SERVANT INTENTIONALLY FAILS — SENTENCED/LAWFULLY COMMITTED PERSON
261 = PUBLIC SERVANT NEGLIGENTLY SUFFERS ESCAPE
262 = PERSON RESISTS OWN LAWFUL APPREHENSION / ESCAPES
263 = RESIST/RESCUE ANOTHER
264 = PUBLIC SERVANT RESIDUAL OMISSION/ESCAPE CASE
265 = RESIDUAL RESISTANCE/ESCAPE/RESCUE
Q40. What do Sections 266 to 268 cover?
Answer:
They continue the public-justice framework.
Section 266
VIOLATION OF CONDITION OF REMISSION OF PUNISHMENT
Section 267
INTENTIONAL INSULT OR INTERRUPTION TO PUBLIC SERVANT IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Section 268
PERSONATION OF ASSESSOR
Q41. Does the supplied introductory classification contain any numbering or grouping inconsistencies?
Answer:
Yes, there are a few points worth noting carefully.
First, the introduction states that offences against public justice run from:
SECTIONS 238 TO 268
but the Chapter itself extends to:
SECTION 269
and Section 269 is separately included under abuse of Court process.
Second, under false personation, the introduction lists:
SECTIONS 242 AND 248
but Section 248, as separately studied, concerns false charge of offence with intent to injure, not personation.
Third, the heading “giving and fabricating false evidence” includes:
SECTION 241
which is more specifically concerned with destruction of documentary/electronic evidence to prevent its production.
These points are best treated as broad editorial grouping rather than strict statutory categorisation.
Q42. What is the best overall structure for studying Chapter XIV?
Answer:
A useful six-part study structure is:
1. FALSE EVIDENCE
Sections 227–237, with Section 241 closely connected.
2. SCREENING / FALSE INFORMATION
Sections 238–240.
3. COURT PROCESS / FALSE CLAIMS / PROPERTY EVASION
Sections 243–248 and Section 269.
4. FALSE PERSONATION
Principally Section 242.
5. HARBOURING
Sections 249, 253 and 254.
6. PUBLIC SERVANT / CUSTODY / JUSTICE-ADMINISTRATION OFFENCES
Sections 255–268.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
Group 1 — False Evidence
227–237 + 241
Core themes:
- Give false evidence;
- Fabricate false evidence;
- Punishment;
- Capital-conviction false evidence;
- Serious non-capital false evidence;
- Threatening witnesses;
- Using false evidence;
- False certificates;
- False declarations;
- Destroying documentary/electronic evidence.
Memory
GIVE – FABRICATE – PUNISH – AGGRAVATE – THREAT – USE – CERTIFY – DECLARE – DESTROY
Group 2 — Disappearance of Evidence / Screening
238–240
Memory
238 = SCREEN
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
Group 3 — Abuse of Court Process
243–248 + 269
Core themes:
- Hide property;
- False property claim;
- False decree;
- False Court claim;
- False criminal charge;
- Failure to appear after bail.
Memory
HIDE – CLAIM – DECREE – CLAIM – ACCUSE – FAIL TO APPEAR
Group 4 — False Personation
242
Core theme:
ASSUME FALSE IDENTITY IN SUIT OR PROSECUTION
Group 5 — Harbouring
249, 253, 254
Memory
249 = OFFENDER
253 = ESCAPEE / APPREHENSION ORDER
254 = ROBBER / DACOIT
Group 6 — Public Servant and Custody Offences
255–268
Core themes:
- Official disobedience;
- False official records;
- Corrupt judicial acts;
- Illegal confinement;
- Failure to apprehend;
- Custodial escape;
- Resistance and rescue;
- Remission violation;
- Judicial interruption;
- Personation of assessor.
Quick Revision Notes
Chapter
XIV
Title
Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice
Sections
227–269
Total
43 sections
Main Themes
False evidence + interference with administration of justice.
First Block
227–237 — false evidence and related conduct.
Screening Block
238–240
Evidence Destruction
241
Personation
242
Court/Property Process
243–248
Harbouring
249, 253, 254
Public Servant / Custody
255–268
Failure to Appear
269
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking Chapter XIV is only about perjury
Incorrect.
It covers a much wider field of offences against public justice.
Trap 2 — Treating Sections 227 and 228 as punishment provisions
Incorrect.
They principally define:
227 = GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
228 = FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE
while Section 229 provides the general punishment.
Trap 3 — Forgetting Section 241
Although numerically outside Sections 227–237, it is closely connected with evidence because it punishes destruction of documentary or electronic evidence.
Trap 4 — Confusing Section 242 and Section 248
Remember:
242 = FALSE PERSONATION
248 = FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGE
The supplied introductory grouping appears inconsistent on this point.
Trap 5 — Ending the Chapter at Section 268
The Chapter extends to:
SECTION 269
Trap 6 — Treating all harbouring offences as the same
Remember:
249 = OFFENDER AFTER CRIME
253 = ESCAPEE / APPREHENSION ORDER
254 = ROBBERS / DACOITS
Trap 7 — Confusing Sections 259 and 260
Use the exact distinction:
259 = PERSON CHARGED WITH OR LIABLE TO APPREHENSION FOR AN OFFENCE
260 = PERSON UNDER SENTENCE OF COURT OR LAWFULLY COMMITTED TO CUSTODY
Trap 8 — Confusing intentional and negligent custodial offences
Remember:
260 = INTENTIONAL
261 = NEGLIGENT
Rapid Revision Chain: Sections 227–269
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
228 = FABRICATE FALSE EVIDENCE
229 = PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE
230 = CAPITAL CONVICTION
231 = SERIOUS NON-CAPITAL CONVICTION
232 = THREAT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE
233 = USE FALSE EVIDENCE
234 = ISSUE FALSE CERTIFICATE
235 = USE FALSE CERTIFICATE
236 = MAKE FALSE DECLARATION
237 = USE FALSE DECLARATION
238 = SCREEN OFFENDER
239 = OMIT INFORMATION
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
241 = DESTROY EVIDENCE
242 = FALSE PERSONATION
243 = HIDE PROPERTY
244 = FALSE PROPERTY CLAIM
245 = SUFFER FALSE DECREE
246 = FALSE COURT CLAIM
247 = OBTAIN FALSE DECREE
248 = FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGE
249 = HARBOUR OFFENDER
250 = TAKE TO SCREEN
251 = GIVE TO SCREEN
252 = TAKE TO RECOVER
253 = HARBOUR ESCAPEE / PERSON WANTED
254 = HARBOUR ROBBERS / DACOITS
255 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYS LAW
256 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL RECORD
257 = CORRUPT JUDICIAL REPORT/ORDER/DECISION
258 = ILLEGAL COMMITMENT / CONFINEMENT
259 = INTENTIONAL FAILURE — CHARGED/APPREHENDABLE PERSON
260 = INTENTIONAL FAILURE — SENTENCED/COMMITTED PERSON
261 = NEGLIGENT ESCAPE
262 = RESIST OWN APPREHENSION / ESCAPE
263 = RESIST/RESCUE ANOTHER
264 = RESIDUAL PUBLIC-SERVANT FAILURE
265 = RESIDUAL RESIST/ESCAPE/RESCUE
266 = VIOLATE REMISSION CONDITION
267 = INSULT / INTERRUPT JUDICIAL PUBLIC SERVANT
268 = PERSONATE ASSESSOR
269 = FAIL TO APPEAR AFTER BAIL/BOND
Master Memory Formula
The entire Chapter may be remembered as:
FALSE EVIDENCE
→
SCREENING
→
DESTROY / PERSONATE / ABUSE COURT PROCESS
→
HARBOURING
→
PUBLIC SERVANT MISCONDUCT
→
APPREHENSION / ESCAPE / RESCUE
→
JUDICIAL ORDER AND APPEARANCE
Ultra-Short Chapter Memory
LIE → FABRICATE → SCREEN → HIDE → HARBOUR → ABUSE OFFICE → ESCAPE → DISRUPT JUSTICE
Key Takeaway
Chapter XIV is a broad protection of the administration of justice.
It does not merely punish perjury. It also punishes conduct that:
- Manufactures or uses false evidence;
- Hides or destroys evidence;
- Screens or harbours offenders;
- Misuses Court processes;
- Makes false claims or false charges;
- Corrupts official records and judicial functions;
- Facilitates escape or obstructs apprehension;
- Interferes with judicial proceedings;
- Defeats lawful bail and appearance obligations.
The best conceptual summary is:
227–237 = CORRUPT THE TRUTH
238–254 = OBSTRUCT OR DEFEAT JUSTICE
255–268 = MISUSE / OBSTRUCT PUBLIC JUSTICE AND CUSTODY
269 = FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE COURT
Final Memory Line
“CHAPTER XIV PROTECTS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM FROM FALSEHOOD, CONCEALMENT, SCREENING, PERSONATION, HARBOURING, OFFICIAL ABUSE, ESCAPE AND DEFIANCE OF COURT PROCESS.”
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 227: Giving False Evidence
Introduction
Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines the offence of giving false evidence.
The offence arises where a person who is legally bound to state the truth, either by oath or by an express provision of law, or who is legally bound to make a declaration on a subject, makes a statement that is false and:
- Knows it to be false; or
- Believes it to be false; or
- Does not believe it to be true.
The provision therefore targets deliberate falsehood by a person who is under a legally recognised obligation of truthfulness.
The central formula is:
LEGAL DUTY TO STATE TRUTH + FALSE STATEMENT/DECLARATION + KNOWS FALSE / BELIEVES FALSE / DOES NOT BELIEVE TRUE = SECTION 227
Q1. What does Section 227 define?
Answer:
Section 227 defines:
GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
It identifies the circumstances in which a false statement becomes legally punishable as false evidence.
Q2. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 227 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 227 BNS = Section 191 IPC
Q3. Has Section 227 changed under BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
- The language remains unchanged; and
- The provision has been retained as it is.
Q4. What is the central idea behind Section 227?
Answer:
The central idea is that a person who is legally required to speak truthfully must not knowingly make a false statement.
Memory
BOUND TO TRUTH + KNOWING FALSEHOOD = FALSE EVIDENCE
Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 227?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- The person must be legally bound by oath to state the truth; or
- The person must be legally bound by an express provision of law to state the truth; or
- The person must be legally bound to make a declaration on a subject;
- The person makes a statement;
- The statement is false;
- The person:
- Knows it is false; or
- Believes it is false; or
- Does not believe it to be true.
Formula
LEGAL OBLIGATION + FALSE STATEMENT + REQUIRED STATE OF MIND = SECTION 227
Q6. What are the three possible sources of the legal obligation?
Answer:
The obligation may arise because the person is:
- Bound by oath to state the truth;
- Bound by express provision of law to state the truth; or
- Bound by law to make a declaration on a particular subject.
Memory
OATH – EXPRESS LAW – LEGAL DECLARATION
Q7. Must the person always be under oath?
Answer:
No.
An oath is one possible source of the obligation, but not the only one.
The obligation may also arise from:
- An express provision of law; or
- A legal duty to make a declaration.
Q8. Why is this important?
Answer:
Because Section 227 is broader than a narrow concept of false testimony under oath.
The decisive question is:
WAS THE PERSON LEGALLY BOUND TO STATE THE TRUTH?
Q9. What is meant by being “legally bound by an oath”?
Answer:
It means the person is placed under a legally recognised oath requiring truthful evidence or declaration.
According to the supplied comments, the authority administering the oath must possess the requisite legal competence.
Q10. What is meant by being bound by an express provision of law?
Answer:
It means that a legal provision itself imposes a duty upon the person to state the truth.
Thus, an oath is unnecessary where the obligation arises directly from law.
Q11. What is meant by being bound by law to make a declaration?
Answer:
It means the law requires the person to make a declaration on a particular subject, and that declaration must be truthful.
A knowingly false declaration may therefore fall within Section 227.
Q12. Must the statement actually be false?
Answer:
Yes.
The statement must be objectively false.
Q13. Is a statement punishable merely because it later turns out to be incorrect?
Answer:
No.
There must also be the required mental state.
The person must:
KNOW IT IS FALSE
or
BELIEVE IT IS FALSE
or
NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE
Q14. What are the three mental states recognised by Section 227?
Answer:
They are:
- Knowledge of falsity;
- Belief in falsity;
- Absence of belief in truth.
Memory
KNOW FALSE – BELIEVE FALSE – DO NOT BELIEVE TRUE
Q15. Why does the section include “does not believe it to be true”?
Answer:
Because a person may avoid claiming direct knowledge but still speak without believing the statement is true.
The section captures that situation as well.
Q16. Is negligence enough?
Answer:
No.
Mere carelessness, confusion, mistake, or faulty memory is not automatically enough.
The required mental state must be established.
Q17. What does Explanation 1 provide?
Answer:
Explanation 1 states that a statement falls within Section 227 whether it is made:
VERBALLY OR OTHERWISE
Q18. What is the significance of Explanation 1?
Answer:
It shows that false evidence is not confined to spoken testimony.
A statement may be made through another form of communication.
Q19. Can a written statement fall within Section 227?
Answer:
Yes.
The phrase “verbally or otherwise” is broad enough to include non-verbal forms of statement.
Q20. What does Explanation 2 provide?
Answer:
Explanation 2 states that a false statement about a person’s own belief may itself amount to false evidence.
A person may be guilty by saying:
- He believes something which he does not believe; or
- He knows something which he does not know.
Q21. Why is Explanation 2 important?
Answer:
Because Section 227 does not only punish false statements about external facts.
It also punishes false statements about the person’s own:
- Belief;
- Knowledge;
- State of mind.
Q22. Give an example of false evidence about belief.
Answer:
A says:
“I believe this signature is Z’s.”
But A does not actually believe that.
If he is legally bound to state the truth, Section 227 may apply.
Q23. Give an example of false evidence about knowledge.
Answer:
A says:
“I know Z was at the place.”
But A has no knowledge whatsoever about whether Z was there.
The statement about A’s own knowledge is false.
Q24. What does Illustration (a) provide?
Answer:
A supports a just claim that B has against Z for ₹1,000.
A falsely swears at trial that he heard Z admit B’s claim.
A has given false evidence.
Q25. Why is Illustration (a) important?
Answer:
Because it shows that:
EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS JUST, FALSE EVIDENCE REMAINS FALSE EVIDENCE
The truth of the overall case does not excuse the deliberate lie.
Q26. Does a good motive excuse false evidence?
Answer:
No.
A person cannot knowingly lie merely because he believes he is helping a person with a legitimate claim.
Q27. What does Illustration (b) provide?
Answer:
A, being bound by oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain signature is Z’s handwriting when he does not actually believe that.
A gives false evidence.
Q28. What principle does Illustration (b) establish?
Answer:
It establishes:
FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT ONE’S OWN BELIEF = FALSE EVIDENCE
Q29. What does Illustration (c) provide?
Answer:
A knows the general character of Z’s handwriting and states that he believes a particular signature to be Z’s.
A genuinely believes this.
Even if the signature is actually not Z’s, A has not given false evidence.
Q30. Why is Illustration (c) important?
Answer:
Because it distinguishes:
FACTUAL ERROR
from
DISHONEST OR KNOWING FALSEHOOD
A can be mistaken and still truthful about what he genuinely believes.
Q31. What is the lesson from Illustration (c)?
Answer:
WRONG BELIEF ≠ FALSE EVIDENCE
if the belief is genuinely held.
Q32. What does Illustration (d) provide?
Answer:
A, being bound by oath, states that he knows Z was at a particular place on a certain day, when A actually knows nothing about the matter.
A gives false evidence.
Q33. What is striking about Illustration (d)?
Answer:
A may be guilty whether Z was actually there or not.
Why?
Because A falsely claims to possess knowledge which he does not possess.
Q34. What principle emerges from Illustration (d)?
Answer:
FALSE CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE CAN ITSELF BE FALSE EVIDENCE
The external fact may even turn out to be true.
Q35. What does Illustration (e) provide?
Answer:
An interpreter or translator gives or certifies as true an interpretation or translation which:
- He is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly;
- Is in fact not true; and
- He does not believe to be true.
He has given false evidence.
Q36. Why are interpreters and translators included?
Answer:
Because the integrity of proceedings depends not only on witnesses but also on those who transmit or interpret statements and documents.
A knowingly false translation can distort evidence just as effectively as false testimony.
Q37. Can an interpreter commit false evidence without being a witness to the underlying facts?
Answer:
Yes.
His duty concerns the accuracy of the interpretation or translation.
Q38. What does the supplied commentary say about perjury?
Answer:
The supplied comments explain that the concept resembles the English offence of:
PERJURY
However, Section 227 is framed according to the Indian statutory concept of being legally bound to state the truth or make a declaration.
Q39. Is Section 227 restricted only to false evidence before a Court?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, no.
The section does not impose such a narrow limitation.
It extends to situations where a person is legally bound by oath or express law to state the truth.
Q40. Why is Section 227 broader than a narrow courtroom-only concept?
Answer:
Because the legal obligation to speak truthfully may arise outside the physical courtroom.
The focus is on:
LEGAL DUTY TO STATE TRUTH
rather than location alone.
Q41. What role does the Oaths Act play according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
The supplied comments explain that the Oaths Act provides for administration of oaths by competent Courts and authorised persons and reinforces the obligation of persons giving evidence to speak truthfully.
Q42. What is the purpose of an oath according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
The supplied comments identify two broad purposes:
- To support prosecution where false evidence is given; and
- To impress upon the person the seriousness of the occasion and the duty to speak truthfully.
Q43. What happens if an oath is omitted by mistake?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, where a competent authority fails, mistakenly or intentionally, to administer the oath, the obligation to give truthful evidence does not necessarily disappear.
The comments refer to Section 8 of the Oaths Act in this context.
Q44. Does irregularity in administering an oath automatically invalidate evidence?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, no.
An irregularity or omission in administering the oath does not automatically:
- Invalidate the proceeding; or
- Render the evidence inadmissible.
Q45. Is competence of the oath-administering authority nevertheless important?
Answer:
Yes.
The supplied comments distinguish between:
- A competent authority that irregularly omits or administers an oath; and
- A body that had no jurisdiction or legal competence to administer the oath at all.
This distinction becomes important in the supplied cases.
Q46. What did the Supreme Court observe in KTMS Mohd v. Union of India according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, the Supreme Court emphasised that merely showing contradictory statements at different stages is not always sufficient for prosecution for false evidence.
It must be established that the person:
INTENTIONALLY GAVE A FALSE STATEMENT
or
FABRICATED FALSE EVIDENCE
for use in a judicial proceeding.
Q47. What is the main principle from KTMS Mohd?
Answer:
CONTRADICTION ALONE ≠ FALSE EVIDENCE
The prosecution must prove intentional falsity.
Q48. Why is this principle important?
Answer:
Because witnesses may contradict themselves because of:
- Mistake;
- Confusion;
- Poor memory;
- Misunderstanding;
- Passage of time.
Not every contradiction is deliberate perjury.
Q49. What must be proved beyond mere contradiction?
Answer:
The relevant intentional falsehood must be established.
Memory
INCONSISTENCY IS EVIDENCE TO EXAMINE, NOT AUTOMATIC GUILT
Q50. What did Fateh Ali v. Queen Empress hold according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, liability requires that the accused be legally bound by oath before a competent authority.
If the Court had no authority to administer the oath, the proceeding would be:
CORAM NON JUDICE
and a prosecution for false evidence would not stand on that basis.
Q51. What does “coram non judice” mean in this context?
Answer:
It refers to proceedings before a body lacking legal jurisdiction.
According to the supplied comments, such acts are treated as legally void.
Q52. Why is jurisdiction important for Section 227?
Answer:
Because the legal obligation relied upon must arise from a competent legal authority.
If the authority itself lacks jurisdiction, the required lawful obligation may not exist in the manner contemplated by the section.
Q53. What did Empress v. Chait Ram hold according to the supplied comments?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, if the Court is acting beyond its jurisdiction, the charge for false evidence will not be sustained.
Q54. What additional proposition is mentioned in the supplied comments?
Answer:
The comments state that the Court must be an Indian Court; otherwise, according to the supplied commentary, no offence is committed for which the accused could be liable in India under this provision.
Q55. Should mere falsehood be enough for conviction under Section 227?
Answer:
No.
The prosecution must establish both:
- The legal obligation to state the truth; and
- The required knowledge or belief concerning falsity.
Q56. Is motive an essential ingredient?
Answer:
No specific motive such as:
- Financial gain;
- Revenge;
- Malice;
- Personal benefit
is expressly required.
The core is the deliberate false statement under a legal duty of truthfulness.
Q57. Is actual harm required?
Answer:
No.
Actual loss, injury, wrongful conviction, or effect on the outcome is not part of the basic definition under Section 227.
Q58. Is materiality expressly required under Section 227?
Answer:
The supplied statutory text does not require that the false statement itself concern a material point.
This distinguishes Section 227 from the structure of fabricating false evidence under Section 228.
Memory
227 = FALSE STATEMENT UNDER LEGAL DUTY
228 = FABRICATION AIMED AT MATERIAL POINT
Q59. Must the statement be made verbally?
Answer:
No.
Explanation 1 expressly states:
VERBALLY OR OTHERWISE
Q60. Can silence itself amount to giving false evidence?
Answer:
Section 227 is framed around making a statement.
Whether silence attracts some other legal consequence depends on another provision, but silence is not the same thing as making the false statement described here.
Q61. Can a person be guilty if he says something factually true but falsely claims personal knowledge?
Answer:
Yes, depending on the circumstances.
Illustration (d) shows that if A claims to know something when he actually does not know it, he gives false evidence even if the external fact happens to be true.
Q62. Why is that possible?
Answer:
Because the statement being tested is not merely:
“Z was there.”
It is effectively:
“I know Z was there.”
If A has no such knowledge, the statement about his own knowledge is false.
Q63. Can a person be innocent even if his statement turns out factually wrong?
Answer:
Yes.
Illustration (c) shows this clearly.
If A honestly believes the signature is Z’s, he is truthful about his belief even if his belief turns out to be mistaken.
Q64. What is the difference between “false fact” and “false belief statement”?
Answer:
A statement may be false in two ways:
- A person asserts an external fact which he knows or believes is false; or
- A person falsely represents his own belief or knowledge.
Section 227 covers both.
Q65. What is the easiest examination test for Section 227?
Answer:
Ask:
- Was the person legally bound to state the truth or make the declaration?
- Did he make a statement?
- Was that statement false?
- Did he know it was false, believe it false, or not believe it true?
If yes:
SECTION 227 IS ATTRACTED
Q66. How does Section 227 differ from Section 228?
Answer:
Section 227
GIVES FALSE EVIDENCE
The person makes a false statement while legally bound to tell the truth.
Section 228
FABRICATES FALSE EVIDENCE
The person creates false circumstances, entries, documents or electronic records with a specific evidentiary intention.
Memory
227 = LIE
228 = MANUFACTURE
Q67. How does Section 227 relate to Section 229?
Answer:
Section 227:
DEFINES GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 229:
PRESCRIBES THE PUNISHMENT
Memory
227 = DEFINITION
229 = PUNISHMENT
Q68. How does Section 227 differ from Section 233?
Answer:
Section 227
The person:
GIVES FALSE EVIDENCE
Section 233
The person:
CORRUPTLY USES OR ATTEMPTS TO USE FALSE OR FABRICATED EVIDENCE AS TRUE OR GENUINE
Memory
227 = GIVE
233 = USE
Q69. How does Section 227 differ from giving false information under Section 240?
Answer:
Section 227
Requires a legally recognised duty to state the truth.
Section 240
Concerns giving false information respecting an offence committed, subject to its own statutory ingredients.
Memory
227 = LEGALLY BOUND TO TRUTH
240 = FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT OFFENCE
Q70. What is the shortest memory formula for Section 227?
Answer:
“LEGALLY BOUND TO SPEAK TRUTH + KNOWINGLY MAKE FALSE STATEMENT = 227.”
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of the Provision
Section 227 is a:
DEFINITION PROVISION
It defines when a person is said to:
GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
The punishment is principally found in Section 229 and aggravated provisions thereafter.
2. Legal Duty
The person must be bound:
BY OATH
or
BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF LAW
to state the truth,
or:
BY LAW TO MAKE A DECLARATION
3. False Statement
The person must make a statement that is:
FALSE
4. Mental Element
The person must:
KNOW IT IS FALSE
or
BELIEVE IT IS FALSE
or
NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE
5. Form of Statement
Under Explanation 1:
VERBAL OR OTHERWISE
6. Statements About Belief
Under Explanation 2, a person may commit the offence by falsely stating:
“I BELIEVE…”
or
“I KNOW…”
when he does not possess that belief or knowledge.
The Five Illustrations — Simplified
Illustration (a): True Case, False Evidence
A lies to support B’s genuine claim.
Lesson
GOOD CASE DOES NOT JUSTIFY FALSE EVIDENCE
Illustration (b): False Claim of Belief
A says he believes a signature is Z’s when he does not.
Lesson
LIE ABOUT BELIEF = FALSE EVIDENCE
Illustration (c): Honest but Mistaken Belief
A genuinely believes a signature is Z’s, though it is not.
Lesson
HONEST MISTAKE ≠ FALSE EVIDENCE
Illustration (d): False Claim of Knowledge
A says he knows Z was at a place although A knows nothing about it.
Lesson
LIE ABOUT KNOWLEDGE = FALSE EVIDENCE
Illustration (e): False Translation
Interpreter knowingly gives a false translation.
Lesson
FALSE INTERPRETATION/TRANSLATION CAN BE FALSE EVIDENCE
Best Illustration Memory
(a) FALSE SUPPORT
(b) FALSE BELIEF
(c) HONEST BELIEF
(d) FALSE KNOWLEDGE
(e) FALSE TRANSLATION
Section 227 vs Section 228
Section 227 — Giving False Evidence
Core:
LEGAL DUTY + FALSE STATEMENT
No requirement that the person manufacture any document or circumstance.
Section 228 — Fabricating False Evidence
Core:
FALSE CREATION + SPECIFIC EVIDENTIARY INTENT + MATERIAL POINT
Shortest Distinction
227 = SAY FALSE
228 = CREATE FALSE
Section 227 vs Section 229
Section 227
WHAT IS FALSE EVIDENCE?
Section 229
WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT?
Section 227 vs Section 240
Section 227
FALSE STATEMENT UNDER LEGAL DUTY TO SPEAK TRUTH
Section 240
FALSE INFORMATION RESPECTING AN OFFENCE COMMITTED
Important Case Notes
KTMS Mohd v. Union of India
According to the supplied comments:
MERE CONTRADICTION AT DIFFERENT STAGES IS NOT ENOUGH
The prosecution must establish intentional falsehood or fabrication.
Memory
CONTRADICTION ≠ AUTOMATIC PERJURY
Fateh Ali v. Queen Empress
According to the supplied comments:
The person must be legally bound by oath before a competent authority.
If the body had no authority to administer the oath:
NO VALID FOUNDATION FOR FALSE-EVIDENCE LIABILITY ON THAT BASIS
Empress v. Chait Ram
According to the supplied comments:
Where the Court acts beyond its jurisdiction, the false-evidence charge cannot be sustained on that proceeding.
Memory
COMPETENT AUTHORITY + VALID JURISDICTION MATTER
Quick Revision Notes
Section
227 BNS
Title
Giving false evidence
IPC Equivalent
Section 191 IPC
Nature
Definition provision.
Legal Obligation
Oath / express provision of law / legal declaration.
Act
Make false statement.
Mental Element
Know false / believe false / do not believe true.
Statement Form
Verbally or otherwise.
Belief Statements
False statements about one’s own belief or knowledge are covered.
Materiality
Not expressly required in the same manner as Section 228.
Punishment
Found principally in Section 229 and aggravated provisions.
BNS Change
No substantive change according to supplied comments.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Thinking oath is always essential
Incorrect.
An express provision of law or legal duty to make a declaration may also create the obligation.
Trap 2 — Thinking every incorrect statement is false evidence
Incorrect.
The required knowledge or belief must be proved.
Trap 3 — Treating contradiction as automatic guilt
Incorrect.
According to the supplied case commentary:
CONTRADICTION ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH
Trap 4 — Thinking statement must be oral
Incorrect.
Explanation 1:
VERBALLY OR OTHERWISE
Trap 5 — Ignoring false claims about belief
A person can give false evidence by claiming a belief he does not actually hold.
Trap 6 — Ignoring false claims about knowledge
A person may give false evidence by claiming knowledge he does not possess.
Trap 7 — Thinking factual truth automatically saves the witness
Incorrect.
Illustration (d) shows that a false claim of personal knowledge may still amount to false evidence even if the external fact happens to be true.
Trap 8 — Thinking factual error automatically creates liability
Incorrect.
Illustration (c) shows:
HONEST MISTAKE ≠ FALSE EVIDENCE
Trap 9 — Thinking a just cause excuses lying
Incorrect.
Illustration (a) shows that false evidence remains false even when used to support a legitimate claim.
Trap 10 — Forgetting competence of authority
According to the supplied cases, the legal authority administering the oath must possess jurisdiction and competence.
Trap 11 — Confusing giving with fabricating
Remember:
227 = GIVE
228 = FABRICATE
Trap 12 — Confusing definition with punishment
Remember:
227 = DEFINITION
229 = PUNISHMENT
Rapid Revision Chain: Sections 227–240
227 = GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE
228 = FABRICATE FALSE EVIDENCE
229 = PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE
230 = CAPITAL CONVICTION
231 = SERIOUS NON-CAPITAL CONVICTION
232 = THREAT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE
233 = USE FALSE EVIDENCE
234 = ISSUE FALSE CERTIFICATE
235 = USE FALSE CERTIFICATE
236 = MAKE FALSE DECLARATION
237 = USE FALSE DECLARATION
238 = SCREEN OFFENDER
239 = OMIT INFORMATION
240 = GIVE FALSE INFORMATION
Best Memory Sequence
227 = GIVE
228 = FABRICATE
229 = PUNISH
230 = CAPITAL
231 = SERIOUS NON-CAPITAL
232 = THREAT
233 = USE
234 = ISSUE CERTIFICATE
235 = USE CERTIFICATE
236 = MAKE DECLARATION
237 = USE DECLARATION
238 = SCREEN
239 = SILENCE
240 = LIE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 227
LEGALLY BOUND TO STATE TRUTH
through:
OATH / EXPRESS LAW / LEGAL DECLARATION
+
MAKES FALSE STATEMENT
+
KNOWS FALSE / BELIEVES FALSE / DOES NOT BELIEVE TRUE
= GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
Key Takeaway
Section 227 BNS defines giving false evidence. The essence of the offence is not simply that a person says something incorrect.
The person must first be under a legally recognised obligation to state the truth or make a declaration. He must then make a false statement with the required mental state.
The three most important mental alternatives are:
KNOWS FALSE
BELIEVES FALSE
DOES NOT BELIEVE TRUE
The section also makes clear that:
- Statements may be verbal or otherwise;
- A lie about one’s own belief can amount to false evidence;
- A lie about one’s own knowledge can amount to false evidence;
- Honest mistake does not amount to false evidence;
- Mere contradiction does not automatically establish intentional falsehood;
- Competence and jurisdiction of the authority creating the legal obligation are important according to the supplied cases.
According to the supplied comments:
Section 227 BNS = Section 191 IPC
and the provision has been retained without substantive change.
Final Memory Line
“227 = LEGALLY BOUND TO TELL THE TRUTH + MAKES A FALSE STATEMENT + KNOWS/BELIEVES IT FALSE OR DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TRUE.”