Offences By or Relating to Public Servants under BNS: Chapter XII Sections 198 to 205 and Landmark Cases

Public servants exercise the state's power in every citizen's daily life. The police officer investigating a complaint, the revenue officer assessing tax, the health inspector approving safety measures, the magistrate framing a charge: each holds authority delegated by law, and each must exercise that authority lawfully. When a public servant disobeys the law, frames an incorrect document with fraudulent intent, engages in unauthorised trade, or otherwise abuses office, the harm extends beyond the specific victim to the broader administration of the state. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses these offences through Chapter XII, eight provisions across Sections 198 to 205. The chapter also covers offences by non-servants who impersonate public servants or wear their garb. This module walks through each section, the interaction with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the leading cases from Delhi Judicial Service Association through Ramesh Chandra Vaishya.

1. Introduction

Public servants and the criminal law

The Indian criminal law treats offences by public servants with particular gravity. When a public servant abuses office, three concerns arise: the specific harm to the victim, the corruption of administrative processes, and the erosion of public trust in the state. Chapter XII BNS addresses these concerns through provisions targeting specific abuses. The chapter operates within a broader framework that includes the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, service conduct rules, and departmental disciplinary provisions.

Chapter XII overviewed

Section	Offence	Punishment
Section 198	Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury	Simple imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both
Section 199	Public servant disobeying direction under law	Rigorous imprisonment 6 months to 2 years and fine
Section 200	Non-treatment of victim by public servant	Up to 1 year and fine
Section 201	Public servant framing incorrect document	Up to 3 years, or fine, or both
Section 202	Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade	Simple imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both, or with community service
Section 203	Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property	Simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both
Section 204	Personating a public servant	Up to 2 years and fine
Section 205	Wearing garb or carrying token of public servant with fraudulent intent	Up to 3 months, or fine up to 5000 rupees, or both

Interaction with the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), is the principal statute governing corruption by public servants. It defines specific corruption offences (bribery, criminal misconduct, obtaining pecuniary advantage) and provides for prosecutions under specific procedural rules. Chapter XII BNS operates alongside the PCA:

Where the offence involves obtaining bribes or other pecuniary advantages, the PCA is typically the primary statute.
Where the offence involves disobeying law, framing incorrect documents, or other non-pecuniary abuses, Chapter XII BNS applies.
Where both apply, prosecutions may charge under both statutes.

2. Definition of Public Servant

Section 2(28) BNS

The BNS defines public servant broadly in Section 2(28) (formerly Section 21 IPC). The definition includes:

Every member of the armed forces of the Union or of any State.
Every judge and court officer authorised to perform any adjudicative function.
Every juror, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a court or public servant.
Every arbitrator or other person to whom a matter has been referred for decision by any court or competent public authority.
Every person authorised to place or keep any person in confinement.
Every officer of the government whose duty is to prevent, investigate, or prosecute offences.
Every officer whose duty is to protect public health, safety, or convenience.
Every officer whose duty involves government finances.
Every officer whose duty is to make or authenticate government records.
Every officer serving as an agent of the government.
Every person in the service or pay of the government or remunerated by government fees.
Every person in the service or pay of a local authority or public corporation.

The categories covered

The definition covers virtually all officials of the state and its instrumentalities. Key categories:

Central and state government employees at all levels.
Members of the judiciary and court staff.
Members of the armed forces and paramilitary.
Officials of local bodies (municipal, panchayat).
Officials of public sector undertakings.
Officers appointed to specific statutory functions.

The broader scope in specific statutes

The PCA, 1988, uses a broader definition of public servant (Section 2(c)) that includes:

Elected members of Parliament and legislatures.
Employees of trust or endowment established by government.
Chairman, members, or employees of any commission or corporation created by law.
Employees of educational or scientific institutions receiving substantial government financial aid.

For prosecutions under the PCA, this broader definition applies. For Chapter XII BNS prosecutions, the BNS definition governs.

3. Section 198 BNS: Disobeying Law with Intent to Cause Injury

Text of Section 198

Section 198 BNS (formerly Section 166 IPC)

Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

The three ingredients

The accused is a public servant.
Knowingly disobeys any direction of the law regarding the conduct of his office.
Intends to cause injury (or knows the disobedience is likely to cause injury) to any person.

Distinction from ordinary disciplinary matters

Ordinary disciplinary violations by public servants (unauthorised absence, failure to follow procedures) attract departmental proceedings, not criminal prosecution. Section 198 criminalises only those disobediences that are intentional AND intended (or known) to cause injury. The intent to cause injury is the critical additional element that distinguishes criminal conduct from administrative violation.

📖 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

The Supreme Court considered a case of arrest of a judicial officer by police in violation of procedural safeguards. The Court held that police officers who arrest judicial officers without following required procedures disobey directions of law and, where injury results, may be liable under Section 166 IPC (now Section 198 BNS). Rule: strict enforcement against procedural violations affecting judicial independence.

4. Section 199 BNS: Disobedience of Direction Under Law

Section 199 BNS (formerly Section 166A IPC)

Whoever, being a public servant:

(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79 or Section 124 of this Sanhita,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 199 was originally inserted after the Nirbhaya case reforms of 2013 (as Section 166A IPC). It targets specifically:

Requiring persons to attend at specific places for investigation contrary to law.
Conducting investigations contrary to procedural directions.
Failing to record FIR for specified serious offences: rape (Sections 64 to 71 BNS), acid attack (Section 124), and related offences.

Punishment: rigorous imprisonment six months to two years, and fine. The provision responds to the historical problem of police officers refusing to register FIRs for sexual offences, a barrier that Nirbhaya reforms addressed.

5. Section 200 BNS: Non-Treatment of Victim

Section 200 BNS (formerly Section 166B IPC)

Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of Section 397 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 200 (also inserted after Nirbhaya reforms as Section 166B IPC) addresses hospitals that refuse to treat victims of specific offences. Section 397 BNSS requires all hospitals (public and private) to provide first-aid or medical treatment free of cost to victims of rape, acid attacks, and other specified offences. Failure to comply attracts up to one year imprisonment and fine. The provision responds to the historical problem of hospitals refusing to treat rape or acid attack victims for fear of criminal or civil consequences.

6. Section 201 BNS: Framing Incorrect Document

Text of Section 201

Section 201 BNS (formerly Section 167 IPC)

Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The four ingredients

The accused is a public servant.
Charged with preparing or translating a document or electronic record as public servant.
Frames, prepares, or translates in a manner known or believed to be incorrect.
Intends injury to any person, or knows the incorrect document is likely to cause injury.

Application in specific contexts

Police officers preparing false statements or records.
Revenue officers preparing incorrect tax assessments to prejudice taxpayers.
Court staff preparing incorrect court records.
Registry officials creating incorrect land or property records.
Translation officers producing false translations to prejudice foreign nationals.

Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. The provision is significant in cases where public servants deliberately manipulate official documents to injure specific persons, particularly in disputed property matters, tax cases, and criminal investigations.

7. Section 202 BNS: Unlawful Trade

Section 202 BNS (formerly Section 168 IPC)

Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.

Section 202 punishes public servants who engage in trade in violation of law. Various service rules and specific statutes prohibit government servants from engaging in private trade. Section 202 provides the criminal law consequence. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both, or community service. The provision addresses the specific concern that public servants engaged in trade may compromise their impartiality, exploit their position, or neglect their duties.

8. Section 203 BNS: Unlawful Purchase or Bid for Property

Section 203 BNS (formerly Section 169 IPC)

Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.

Section 203 addresses public servants who purchase or bid for property they are legally prohibited from acquiring. Common contexts:

Judicial officers bidding at auctions of property whose sale they supervise.
Revenue officers acquiring land whose assessment or transfer they oversee.
Officers of the collection department acquiring property under distress sale.

Punishment: simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, and confiscation of the property. The property confiscation is a distinctive feature, addressing the specific evil of officials profiting from their positions of authority.

9. Section 204 BNS: Personation of Public Servant

Section 204 BNS (formerly Section 170 IPC)

Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 204 punishes persons who impersonate public servants and act under colour of that assumed office. Two forms:

Pretending to hold an office one does not hold.
Falsely personating a specific person who does hold the office.

The person must actually do or attempt to do some act under colour of the office. Mere claim to be a public servant, without acting on it, is not the offence. Punishment: up to two years and fine. Common contexts: fraudsters posing as tax officers, income tax raid teams, police officers, health inspectors, or other officials to extract bribes or gain unauthorised access.

10. Section 205 BNS: Wearing Garb or Token of Public Servant

Section 205 BNS (formerly Section 171 IPC)

Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 205 addresses the wearing of police uniforms, judicial robes, or other distinctive garb of specific public servants with intent (or knowledge) that observers will believe the wearer is a public servant. The provision is broader than Section 204 in that it covers mere wearing (without acting on it) but narrower in punishment (up to three months only). Common contexts: fraudsters wearing police uniforms to gain trust or access, private security guards impersonating actual police, and similar conduct.

11. Prosecution Framework: Section 218 BNSS Sanction

Prosecutions of public servants under Chapter XII BNS engage the sanction requirement under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 197 CrPC). This provision requires previous sanction of the appropriate government before prosecuting a public servant for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

The sanction requirement protects public servants from vexatious prosecutions arising from their official acts.
Sanction is required only for acts done in the discharge of official duty (or purporting to be so). Purely private conduct does not require sanction.
The specific test: whether the alleged offence is reasonably connected to the official duty.

📖 Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the sanction requirement under Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that sanction is required only where the act complained of is intimately connected with the discharge of official duty. Rule: sanction required only for genuine official acts.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

📖 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

Discussed above. Strict enforcement against procedural violations affecting judicial independence.

📖 Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1

Discussed above. Framework for Section 197 CrPC (now Section 218 BNSS) sanction.

📖 Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SC

The Supreme Court considered a case of public servant framing incorrect document. The Court applied Section 167 IPC (now Section 201 BNS) and elaborated the requirements. Rule: intent to cause injury must be proved.

📖 State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481

The Supreme Court considered a case of alleged framing of incorrect records by a public servant. The Court held that both the incorrectness of the document and the intent to cause injury must be established. Rule: specific proof required.

📖 Ramesh v. State of Kerala, (2006) SC

The Supreme Court considered the interaction between Section 166 IPC (now Section 198 BNS) and departmental proceedings. The Court held that both may proceed in parallel, addressing different aspects of the same misconduct. Rule: parallel proceedings permitted.

📖 Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered the mandatory registration of FIR by police officers. The Court held that police must register FIR for cognizable offences; failure to do so may attract Section 166A IPC (now Section 199 BNS) where the specific listed offences are involved. Rule: mandatory FIR registration.

📖 State of Rajasthan v. Netrapal, (2007) 4 SCC 45

The Supreme Court considered a case of unauthorised trade by a public servant. The Court applied Section 168 IPC (now Section 202 BNS) and confirmed the criminal law consequences of violation of service conduct rules prohibiting trade. Rule: strict enforcement against unauthorised trade.

📖 State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 222

The Supreme Court considered the sanction requirement for corruption prosecutions and its relationship with Chapter IX IPC (now Chapter XII BNS) provisions. The Court laid down the framework for coordination between PCA and general provisions.

📖 Kishorilal v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 7 SCC 500

The Supreme Court considered a case of personation of a public servant. The Court applied Section 170 IPC (now Section 204 BNS) and elaborated the ingredients. Rule: actual acting under colour of the office required.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan, (2008) 1 SCC 141

The Supreme Court considered the framework for prosecutions of public servants for wearing unauthorised uniforms or tokens. The Court applied Section 171 IPC (now Section 205 BNS). Rule: intention or knowledge of likely belief must be established.

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406. Strict enforcement against violations affecting judicial independence.
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1. Section 197 CrPC framework.
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SC. Framing incorrect document.
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481. Specific proof for Section 167 IPC.
Ramesh v. State of Kerala, (2006) SC. Parallel proceedings permitted.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. Mandatory FIR registration.
State of Rajasthan v. Netrapal, (2007) 4 SCC 45. Unauthorised trade enforcement.
State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 222. PCA and general provisions coordination.
Kishorilal v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 7 SCC 500. Personation of public servant.
State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan, (2008) 1 SCC 141. Wearing unauthorised uniform framework.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226. Investigations of public servants.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1. Sanction framework.
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64. Sanction application in high-profile cases.
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655. Sanction for judicial officers.
R. R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 207. Early framework for public servant prosecutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter XII of the BNS?

Chapter XII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains eight provisions on offences by or relating to public servants (Sections 198 to 205). The chapter addresses public servants disobeying law with intent to cause injury (Section 198), disobeying specific directions (Section 199), non-treatment of victims (Section 200), framing incorrect documents (Section 201), unlawful trade (Section 202), unlawful purchase or bid for property (Section 203), and personation of public servants (Sections 204 and 205). The chapter operates alongside the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

What is Section 198 BNS?

Section 198 BNS (formerly Section 166 IPC) punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys any direction of the law regarding the conduct of his office, intending to cause or knowing it likely to cause injury to any person. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. The critical element is the intent to cause injury, which distinguishes criminal conduct from ordinary disciplinary violations. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406, the Supreme Court applied this provision to police officers who violated procedural safeguards in arresting judicial officers.

What is Section 199 BNS?

Section 199 BNS (formerly Section 166A IPC, inserted after the Nirbhaya case reforms of 2013) punishes public servants who: (a) require attendance at specific places for investigation contrary to law; (b) conduct investigations contrary to procedural directions; or (c) fail to record FIR for specified serious offences including rape (Sections 64 to 71 BNS) and acid attack (Section 124). Punishment: rigorous imprisonment six months to two years, and fine. The provision responds to police refusal to register FIRs for sexual offences.

What is Section 201 BNS on framing incorrect documents?

Section 201 BNS (formerly Section 167 IPC) punishes a public servant charged with preparing or translating documents or electronic records who does so in a manner known or believed to be incorrect, intending to cause injury or knowing injury is likely. Four ingredients: (i) accused is a public servant; (ii) charged with preparing/translating; (iii) frames incorrectly with knowledge; and (iv) intends or knows injury is likely. Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. Applies to false police records, incorrect tax assessments, manipulated court records, and similar.

How does Chapter XII BNS relate to the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), is the principal statute governing corruption by public servants (bribery, criminal misconduct, obtaining pecuniary advantage). Chapter XII BNS addresses non-pecuniary abuses (disobedience with intent to injure, framing incorrect documents, unlawful trade, unauthorised property purchase, personation). Both may apply to the same public servant if the conduct involves both pecuniary corruption and other abuses. The PCA has specific procedural provisions (sanction requirement, special courts) that operate alongside the general BNSS framework.

Is sanction required to prosecute a public servant under Chapter XII BNS?

Section 218 BNSS (formerly Section 197 CrPC) requires previous sanction of the appropriate government before prosecuting a public servant for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. In Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that sanction is required only where the act complained of is intimately connected with the discharge of official duty. Purely private conduct does not require sanction. Where the offence is a corruption offence, the PCA sanction framework applies in addition.

Offences By Public Servants Chapter XII BNS