Unit-II: Offences Against State and Public Tranquility
Q Discuss the offences against the state under Sections 121-130 of the IPC. What are their punishments?
Here’s a detailed explanation of Offences Against the State under Sections 121–130 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, including their definitions and punishments, along with relevant illustrations and judgments.
📘 Offences Against the State (Sections 121–130 IPC)
These provisions aim to protect the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India. They deal with acts that challenge or threaten the authority of the government.
🔹 Section-Wise Breakdown:
✅ Section 121 – Waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India
Definition:
Whoever wages war, attempts to wage war, or abets the waging of war against the Government of India.
Punishment:
- Death, or
- Imprisonment for life
- Also liable to fine
Example: Armed insurrection or rebellion against the government.
Case Law:
- Kehar Singh v. State (1988) – Involved in Indira Gandhi assassination; conspiracy to wage war held punishable under this section.
✅ Section 121A – Conspiracy to commit offences under Section 121
Definition:
Conspiring to wage war or overawe the Government by criminal force, even if no act is committed.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment for life, or
- Imprisonment up to 10 years
- Also liable to fine
Note: Mere agreement is punishable, unlike other crimes which require an overt act.
✅ Section 122 – Collecting arms for waging war
Definition:
Collecting men, arms, or ammunition with the intent of waging war against the Government of India.
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment, or
- Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine
✅ Section 123 – Concealing a design to wage war
Definition:
Whoever intentionally conceals plans to wage war against the Government with intent or knowledge that such concealment will facilitate war.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 10 years
- Also liable to fine
✅ Section 124 – Assaulting President or Governor to compel/stop lawful acts
Definition:
Assaulting or wrongfully restraining the President or a State Governor with the intention to influence their lawful powers.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine
✅ Section 124A – Sedition 🛑 (Highly debated)
Definition:
Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection against the Government of India.
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment with fine, or
- Imprisonment up to 3 years with fine, or
- Fine only
Explanation:
Criticism of the government not amounting to incitement is not sedition.
Landmark Case:
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) – Upheld the constitutionality of sedition but limited its application to incitement to violence or public disorder.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Emphasized freedom of speech; Section 66A struck down, reinforcing limits on sedition.
✅ Section 125 – Waging war against Asiatic powers in alliance with India
Definition:
Waging war against foreign states allied with India (like Nepal, Bhutan, etc.)
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment, or
- Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine
✅ Section 126 – Committing depredation on territories of allied powers
Definition:
Committing violent raids or thefts on territories of allied states.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 7 years, and fine
- Also forfeiture of property
✅ Section 127 – Receiving property taken in such depredation
Definition:
Receiving or possessing property obtained through depredation on allied territories.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 7 years, and fine
- Property liable to forfeiture
✅ Section 128 – Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of state or war to escape
Definition:
If a public servant allows a prisoner of war or a state prisoner to escape intentionally.
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment, or
- Imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine
✅ Section 129 – Negligently allowing prisoner of state or war to escape
Definition:
Same as Section 128, but due to negligence (not intentional).
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, and/or fine
✅ Section 130 – Aiding escape or harbouring such prisoners
Definition:
Helping or concealing a prisoner of war or state prisoner who has escaped.
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment, or
- Imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine
⚖️ Purpose of These Provisions
| Goal | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protect national security | Prevent threats to government sovereignty and foreign relations |
| Maintain public order | Suppress insurrection, terrorism, and armed rebellion |
| Ensure international obligations | Prevent attacks on friendly foreign nations |
🧠 Critical Analysis
✅ Strengths:
- Provide robust protection for sovereignty and state institutions
- Serve as a deterrent to rebellion, terrorism, and foreign aggression
❌ Criticism:
- Some provisions like Sedition (124A) are often misused against dissenters and activists
- Certain sections are colonial remnants and may conflict with democratic values and freedom of speech
📌 Conclusion
Sections 121–130 IPC deal with the gravest offences against the State. While they are essential for protecting national integrity, their interpretation must be consistent with the Constitution, especially Articles 14, 19, and 21. Reforms and judicial oversight are crucial to prevent abuse of power under these sections.
Q Explain the provisions related to unlawful assembly and rioting under Sections 141-160. Refer to State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaiah.
Here is a detailed explanation of the provisions related to unlawful assembly and rioting under Sections 141–160 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, along with reference to the case State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaiah.
🧾 Unlawful Assembly and Rioting (Sections 141–160 IPC)
These sections deal with public order offences, focusing on group violence or threats of violence. They aim to safeguard peace, public tranquillity, and lawful civil conduct.
🔹 Section-wise Provisions
✅ Section 141 – Unlawful Assembly
Definition:
An assembly of five or more persons is unlawful if the common object is:
- To overawe government by criminal force;
- To resist execution of law or legal process;
- To commit mischief, criminal trespass, or other offences;
- To take possession of property by force;
- To compel someone to do something they’re not legally bound to do, or prevent them from doing something they are legally entitled to do, using criminal force.
📝 Explanation: Mere gathering is not enough. The intention (common object) and possibility of force are essential.
✅ Section 142 – Being a member of an unlawful assembly
Any person who intentionally joins or continues in an unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence.
✅ Section 143 – Punishment for unlawful assembly
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 144 – Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 145 – Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly knowing it has been commanded to disperse
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 146 – Rioting
Definition:
When force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly (or any member thereof), it amounts to rioting.
✅ Section 147 – Punishment for rioting
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 148 – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 3 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 149 – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
If any offence is committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object, every member is vicariously liable.
🔍 Key Case:
- State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaiah
- The Supreme Court held that mere presence at the scene does not automatically make one guilty under Section 149.
- There must be active participation or clear proof of a common object.
- If common object is not established, Section 149 cannot apply.
✅ Sections 150–160 – Related Offences
| Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 150 | Hiring or inciting unlawful assembly | Same as for the offence committed |
| 151 | Knowingly joining unlawful assembly in prosecution of criminal object | Up to 6 months or fine |
| 152 | Assaulting or obstructing public servant suppressing riot | Up to 3 years + fine |
| 153 | Provocation to riot | Up to 1 year + fine |
| 153A | Promoting enmity between groups | Up to 3 years (or 5 years if done in places of worship) |
| 153B | Imputations against national integration | Up to 3 years + fine |
| 154–157 | Liability of landowners, occupiers, or persons hiring unlawful assemblies | Fines or imprisonment (varies) |
| 158 | Person hired to take part in unlawful assembly | Up to 6 months/fine |
| 159 | Definition of Affray: Fighting in public causing disturbance | |
| 160 | Punishment for Affray | Up to 1 month or ₹100 fine or both |
📌 Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Unlawful Assembly | Group of 5+ with criminal intent or object |
| Rioting | Unlawful assembly + use of force or violence |
| Section 149 | Vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly |
| Common Object vs Common Intention | Common object under S.141 is broader than intention; proof of object is enough for liability |
| Gangadharaiah Case | Reinforced that guilt under Section 149 requires evidence of a shared common object, not mere presence |
🧠 Critical Observations
✅ Importance:
- Controls mass violence, political mobs, and social unrest.
- Protects lawful governance and public peace.
❌ Concerns:
- Misuse during political protests or public gatherings.
- Requires strong judicial scrutiny to prevent wrongful prosecution.
📚 Conclusion
Sections 141–160 of the IPC provide a comprehensive framework to regulate public assemblies, prevent violence, and uphold public order. Judicial interpretation, such as in State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaiah, ensures that the application of these sections is fair, requiring proof of shared criminal intent rather than guilt by association.
Q What are the offences by or relating to public servants under Sections 166-171 of the IPC?
Here’s a detailed explanation of offences by or relating to public servants under Sections 166–171 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
📘 Offences by or Relating to Public Servants (Sections 166–171 IPC)
These sections aim to ensure accountability, integrity, and lawful conduct of public servants in the exercise of their duties and to penalize misuse of authority.
🔹 Section-Wise Breakdown
✅ Section 166 – Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury
Definition:
A public servant knowingly disobeys a legal direction in law to cause injury to any person.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 1 year, or
- Fine, or
- Both
📝 Example: A magistrate refuses to record a FIR despite being legally bound to do so, with the intent of protecting the accused.
✅ Section 166A – Public servant disobeying direction under law relating to investigation
Definition:
Specifically relates to violations by police/public servants in cases involving:
- Non-investigation of offences against women
- Non-recording of information (e.g., rape, sexual harassment)
Punishment:
- Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 6 months, extendable to 2 years, and fine
📚 Note: Added via Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, post-Nirbhaya case.
✅ Section 166B – Non-treatment of victim
Definition:
Punishes those in hospitals or clinics who refuse to treat victims of rape or acid attacks.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 1 year, and/or
- Fine
✅ Section 167 – Framing incorrect document by public servant
Definition:
A public servant knowingly frames or prepares a false record or document with the intention to cause injury.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 3 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
📝 Example: A revenue officer alters land ownership records to harm or favor someone.
✅ Section 168 – Public servant engaging in trade
Definition:
A public servant engaged in a trade or business during service, without legal sanction.
Punishment:
- Fine up to ₹500 (though outdated and subject to calls for revision)
✅ Section 169 – Unlawful buying or bidding by public servant
Definition:
A public servant buys property or bids at an auction where they are legally prohibited due to conflict of interest.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
- Also, the property involved is confiscated.
✅ Section 170 – Personating a public servant
Definition:
A person falsely impersonates a public servant to perform or claim an official act.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
📝 Example: Pretending to be an income tax officer to search premises.
✅ Section 171 – Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant
Definition:
Wearing official uniform or using insignia, token, or symbol meant for a public servant without authorization.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 3 months, or
- Fine up to ₹200, or
- Both
📌 Purpose of These Sections
| Purpose | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Accountability | Prevents abuse of power by public servants |
| Integrity in office | Promotes ethical conduct and prohibits unlawful enrichment |
| Protection of public interest | Ensures that the authority of state agents is not misused |
| Discouragement of impersonation | Safeguards citizens from fraud by fake public officials |
🧠 Judicial Interpretation
- In R. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty of public servants to act lawfully and fairly, especially in sensitive matters like custodial investigations.
- In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), failure of police officers to register FIRs (relevant to Section 166A) was declared a violation of mandatory duty.
📝 Conclusion
Sections 166–171 IPC establish a legal framework for ethical conduct among public servants and discourage misuse of power. With evolving standards of governance and transparency, these provisions remain crucial for a just administrative system.
Q What are the offences affecting public health and safety under Sections 268-282? Provide examples.
What are the offences affecting public health and safety under Sections 268-282? Provide examples.Here’s a detailed explanation of offences affecting public health and safety under Sections 268 to 282 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, along with relevant examples and punishments.
📘 Topic: Offences Affecting Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency, and Morals (Sections 268–282 IPC)
These sections deal with acts that harm society at large, particularly those that disturb public health, safety, or general convenience. The objective is to maintain social order and public welfare.
🔹 SECTION-WISE ANALYSIS (IPC §§ 268–282)
✅ Section 268 – Public Nuisance
Definition:
A person commits public nuisance if their act or omission causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or people in general using a public space.
🔹 No need for intent or negligence to be proved.
📝 Example: Dumping industrial waste in a public river or emitting toxic smoke near a school.
✅ Section 269 – Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life
Definition:
Doing any act negligently that is likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease.
📝 Example: A COVID-positive person breaking quarantine and attending a public gathering.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 270 – Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life
Definition:
Maliciously doing any act likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease.
📝 Example: A person knowingly spitting on others despite being infected with tuberculosis.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 2 years, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 271 – Disobedience to quarantine rule
Definition:
Knowingly disobeying a quarantine rule or regulation made by a lawful authority.
📝 Example: Evading isolation after testing positive for a contagious disease.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine, or
- Both
✅ Section 272 – Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale
Definition:
Adulterating any food or drink with the intention to sell, knowing it will be harmful.
📝 Example: Mixing chemical dyes in milk or turmeric powder to increase quantity.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, and
- Fine up to ₹1,000
🛑 Note: Enhanced punishment under special food safety laws like FSSAI Act.
✅ Section 273 – Sale of noxious food or drink
Definition:
Selling food or drink known to be noxious and unfit for human consumption.
📝 Example: Selling stale meat or expired packaged snacks.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, and
- Fine up to ₹1,000
✅ Section 274 – Adulteration of drugs
Definition:
Adulterating any drug or medical preparation to make it harmful for sale.
📝 Example: Mixing chalk powder in a tablet and selling it as a calcium supplement.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, and
- Fine up to ₹1,000
✅ Section 275 – Sale of adulterated drugs
Definition:
Selling or offering adulterated drugs knowingly.
📝 Example: Selling expired or counterfeit antibiotics.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, and
- Fine up to ₹1,000
✅ Section 276 – Sale of drug as a different drug
Definition:
Selling one drug as another drug fraudulently.
📝 Example: Selling paracetamol as a cancer medicine.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, and
- Fine up to ₹1,000
✅ Section 277 – Fouling water of public spring or reservoir
Definition:
Corrupting or fouling water in a public source to make it unfit for use.
📝 Example: Discharging sewage into a municipal water reservoir.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 3 months, or
- Fine up to ₹500, or
- Both
✅ Section 278 – Making atmosphere noxious to health
Definition:
Knowingly polluting the air to make it harmful to health.
📝 Example: Emitting toxic gases from an unlicensed chemical factory in a residential area.
Punishment:
- Fine up to ₹500
✅ Section 279 – Rash driving or riding on a public way
Definition:
Driving or riding in a rash or negligent manner that endangers human life or safety.
📝 Example: Speeding through a busy street or performing stunts on public roads.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine up to ₹1,000, or
- Both
✅ Section 280 – Navigating a vessel negligently
Definition:
Navigating a vessel negligently so as to endanger life or property.
📝 Example: A ferry captain overloading passengers and steering dangerously.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine up to ₹1,000, or
- Both
✅ Section 281 – Exhibition of false lights, marks or buoy
Definition:
Exhibiting false lights or marks to mislead navigators.
📝 Example: Placing misleading lights near a coastline to cause shipwreck.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 7 years, and
- Fine
✅ Section 282 – Conveying person by water for hire in unsafe or overloaded vessel
Definition:
Carrying people for hire in an unsafe or overloaded water vessel.
📝 Example: A boat operator overloading a boat with tourists without safety equipment.
Punishment:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine up to ₹1,000, or
- Both
📌 Summary Table
| Section | Offence | Max Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 268 | Public nuisance | — |
| 269 | Negligent spread of disease | 6 months + fine |
| 270 | Malignant spread of disease | 2 years + fine |
| 271 | Disobeying quarantine | 6 months + fine |
| 272 | Adulteration of food | 6 months + ₹1,000 fine |
| 273 | Sale of noxious food | 6 months + ₹1,000 fine |
| 274 | Adulteration of drugs | 6 months + ₹1,000 fine |
| 275 | Sale of adulterated drugs | 6 months + ₹1,000 fine |
| 276 | Sale of drug as different one | 6 months + ₹1,000 fine |
| 277 | Fouling public water | 3 months + ₹500 fine |
| 278 | Polluting air | ₹500 fine |
| 279 | Rash driving | 6 months or ₹1,000 or both |
| 280 | Negligent navigation | 6 months or ₹1,000 or both |
| 281 | False lights or marks | 7 years + fine |
| 282 | Overloading unsafe vessel | 6 months or ₹1,000 or both |
🧠 Conclusion
These provisions safeguard public health, safety, and the environment, reflecting the state’s duty to protect society from avoidable dangers and promote responsible conduct in trade, transport, and everyday life.
Q Critically analyze the relevance of offences against public servants in modern governance.
📘 Critical Analysis: Relevance of Offences Against Public Servants in Modern Governance
(Sections 166–171 IPC, 1860)
🔹 Introduction
In a democratic setup, public servants are agents of the State responsible for delivering public services, enforcing laws, and maintaining order. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Sections 166–171, criminalizes certain acts committed by or relating to public servants to ensure accountability, integrity, and respect for rule of law.
In the era of modern governance—marked by digitization, transparency demands, and citizen-centric service delivery—the relevance and challenges of these provisions deserve critical evaluation.
🔹 Overview of Offences Against Public Servants (Sections 166–171 IPC)
| Section | Offence | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 166 | Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury | Willful dereliction of duty |
| 166A | Public servant disobeying direction under law (esp. in investigation, sexual offences) | Introduced via 2013 amendment |
| 166B | Non-treatment of victims (e.g., rape victims) by hospitals | Punishable with imprisonment |
| 167 | Fabrication of false records | Malicious misuse of power |
| 168 | Engaging in trade | Public servants engaging in trade |
| 169 | Unlawful purchase of property by public servant | Abuse of fiduciary role |
| 170 | Personating a public servant | Misusing authority |
| 171 | Wearing garb or token used by public servant | Misrepresentation to gain influence |
🔹 Importance in Modern Governance
✅ 1. Ensures Accountability and Prevents Abuse of Power
Public trust is rooted in the accountability of government officials.
- Example: Section 166 punishes officers who deliberately ignore legal duties (e.g., refusing to file an FIR).
- Modern Relevance: Protects citizens from administrative high-handedness and builds rule-of-law culture.
✅ 2. Safeguards Against Misuse of Authority
Sections like 167 and 169 penalize manipulation of records or improper acquisition of property, deterring corruption and favoritism in public offices.
✅ 3. Protection of Victims and Vulnerable Populations
Section 166A & 166B, added after the Nirbhaya Case, mandate prompt registration of sexual offence complaints and medical treatment of victims.
✅ Reflects a shift toward gender-sensitive, human-rights-based governance.
✅ 4. Preserves Institutional Integrity
Provisions against impersonation (S. 170) or misuse of official uniforms (S. 171) protect the legitimacy of public institutions and prevent impersonation scams, especially in digital frauds.
🔴 Challenges and Limitations in Application
❌ 1. Low Conviction Rates and Poor Enforcement
Despite clear provisions, very few convictions are recorded due to:
- Lack of evidence,
- Political shielding,
- Bureaucratic corruption.
📌 Example: Police officers not registering rape complaints despite clear legal duties—hard to prove “intent” under Section 166.
❌ 2. Ambiguity in Defining “Public Servant” in Practice
While Section 21 IPC defines public servants, contractual staff, outsourced employees, or digital service providers in e-governance setups often fall in legal grey zones.
❌ 3. Misuse Against Honest Officers
Sometimes vexatious complaints are filed against sincere public servants for political vendetta or personal grievance, leading to fear of performing duty.
❌ 4. Lack of Public Awareness
Citizens are often unaware of their rights under Sections 166A/166B, especially in rural areas, leading to under-reporting of dereliction of duty.
🔹 Judicial Interpretation & Legislative Evolution
🔸 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013)
Held: FIR must be registered in cognizable offences—failure to do so attracts liability under Section 166A.
🔸 Nirbhaya Case (2012) → Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
Led to inclusion of Sections 166A and 166B, showing how public outcry can evolve the law.
🔹 Recommendations for Better Enforcement
- Training and sensitization of public servants on their legal obligations.
- Use of technology (e.g., body cams, complaint tracking apps) to monitor service delivery.
- Independent accountability mechanisms like Lokayuktas and internal vigilance.
- Amending provisions to include digital misconduct or dereliction in e-governance setups.
🔚 Conclusion
Offences against public servants remain highly relevant in modern governance as they:
- Protect citizens,
- Uphold public service ethics,
- Ensure constitutional values.
However, effective enforcement, clarity in definitions, and balancing protection with accountability are essential for these provisions to truly serve democratic and transparent governance.