Offences Against Public Justice, Public Servants, Mischief, Trespass & Forgery (BNS) — Criminal Law I Notes

Offences by or relating to public servants

Two related ideas: offences by public servants abusing their office, and offences against the authority of public servants.

Offences by public servants (ss.198–205, BNS [old ss.166–171 IPC]). A public servant who disobeys the law with intent to cause injury (s.198), frames an incorrect record to injure (s.201), unlawfully engages in trade or buys property he is charged with (ss.202–203), or a person who impersonates a public servant (s.204) — these punish the corrupt or abusive exercise of public office.

Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants (ss.206–226, BNS [old ss.172–190 IPC]). These punish citizens who obstruct the working of public authority: absconding to avoid service of summons (s.206), not obeying an order to attend (s.209), omitting to produce a document legally bound to be produced (s.210/s.213), giving false information to a public servant (s.217), obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty, and resisting lawful apprehension (s.224).

The unifying idea. The State works through its officers; the law both disciplines those officers (offences by them) and protects their lawful functioning from citizens who obstruct it (offences against their authority).

🧩 Worked example. A person legally bound to produce a document before a court intentionally omits to produce it. He commits an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of a public servant (s.210/s.213) — obstructing the administration of justice. Separately, a police officer who frames a false record to harm an innocent person commits an offence by a public servant (s.201) — abuse of the very authority he holds.

s.198, BNS: “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…”

In Simple Terms: the law cuts both ways — it punishes officials who abuse their power, and it punishes citizens who obstruct officials doing their lawful duty. The State’s machinery is protected from corruption within and defiance without.

flowchart TD
    PS["PUBLIC SERVANTS"] --> BY["Offences BY public servants ss.198–205 — disobeying law, false records, impersonation"]
    PS --> AG["Contempt of authority ss.206–226 — absconding, not producing documents, false info, obstruction"]

Case Laws

• State (public-servant abuse cases) — abuse of official position with intent to injure is the gist of offences by public servants.

Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence

A witness who lies on oath and a schemer who plants a forged letter for the court to find both attack the same thing — the truth-finding function of justice. The law names them separately: giving false evidence (the lie in the proceeding) and fabricating false evidence (manufacturing false material for a proceeding).

Giving false evidence — s.227, BNS [old s.191 IPC]. Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by law to state the truth, or bound by law to make a declaration, makes a statement which is false, and which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. This is perjury — the lie told in a proceeding, by a witness or declarant.

Fabricating false evidence — s.228, BNS [old s.192 IPC]. Whoever causes any circumstance to exist, or makes a false entry in a book/record/electronic record, or makes a document/electronic record containing a false statement, intending that it may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and cause a wrong opinion to be formed — is said to fabricate false evidence. This is manufacturing false material for a proceeding.

The distinction (the marks are here):

• Nature. Giving false evidence is a false statement by a person bound to tell the truth; fabricating is creating false material (a forged letter, a planted object, a false entry).
• Oath. Giving false evidence usually involves a person on oath / bound by law; fabricating needs no oath — anyone can plant evidence.
• Timing. False evidence is given during a proceeding; fabrication is usually done beforehand, to be produced later.
• Effect intended. Both aim to mislead the tribunal, but fabrication requires the intent that the false thing appear in evidence and produce a wrong opinion.

Punishment — s.229, BNS [old s.193 IPC]. Both are punished with imprisonment up to seven years and fine; giving/fabricating false evidence in a capital trial carries up to life imprisonment, because a lie there may cost an innocent life.

🧩 Worked example. X, a witness on oath, testifies that he saw A commit the crime, knowing this to be false — that is giving false evidence (s.227). Y, before the trial, forges a letter making it appear A confessed, and plants it so it will be produced in court — that is fabricating false evidence (s.228). One lied in the proceeding; the other manufactured false material for it. Both are punishable under s.229, and if the trial is a capital one, up to life.

s.227, BNS: “Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.”

In Simple Terms: giving false evidence is lying when you are bound to tell the truth; fabricating false evidence is manufacturing a false thing for a court to find and be misled by. Both poison the search for truth, and both are punished heavily.

flowchart TD
    FE["FALSE EVIDENCE"] --> G["GIVING s.227 — false STATEMENT by a person bound to tell the truth (perjury)"]
    FE --> F["FABRICATING s.228 — CREATING false material/entry to appear in evidence"]
    FE --> P["s.229 — up to 7 yrs; up to LIFE in a capital trial"]

Case Laws

• Ranjit Singh v State of Pepsu (1959) — the distinction between a false statement (s.191) and creating false evidence (s.192).
• Babulal v State (fabrication cases) — fabrication requires the intent that the false circumstance appear in evidence and cause a wrong opinion.

Destruction of evidence and harbouring an offender

Causing disappearance of evidence — s.238, BNS [old s.201 IPC]. Whoever, knowing or believing that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of that offence to disappear, or gives false information to screen the offender, is punished — the punishment graded by the offence screened (up to seven years if the offence is capital). This targets the person who destroys or hides evidence to protect a criminal.

Harbouring an offender — ss.248–249, BNS [old ss.212–216 IPC]. Whoever harbours or conceals a person he knows to be an offender, intending to screen him from legal punishment, is punished — again graded by the offence the harboured person committed. An exception protects a person who harbours their spouse (a husband or wife harbouring the other is not guilty).

The unifying idea. These are offences against public justice — they punish those who, though not the original criminal, obstruct the punishment of crime by destroying evidence or sheltering the offender. The State’s interest in bringing criminals to justice would be defeated if such conduct went unpunished.

🧩 Worked example. A, knowing that B has committed a murder, burns B’s blood-stained clothes to make the evidence disappear. A is guilty of causing disappearance of evidence (s.238), and because murder is a capital offence, faces up to seven years. If A also hides B in his house to shield him from arrest, A commits harbouring an offender (s.248) — unless B is A’s spouse, in which case the exception protects A.

s.238, BNS: “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment… shall be punished…”

In Simple Terms: if you destroy evidence or hide a criminal to save him from justice, you commit a crime yourself — the seriousness matching the crime you helped to conceal. Only the shelter of one’s own spouse is excused.

flowchart TD
    PJ["OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE"] --> DE["s.238 Causing disappearance of evidence / false info to screen offender"]
    PJ --> HB["ss.248–249 Harbouring an offender to screen him"]
    HB --> EXC["Exception: harbouring one's SPOUSE is not an offence"]

Case Laws

• Kalawati v State of H.P. (1953) — s.201 requires knowledge that an offence was committed and intent to screen the offender.

Public nuisance

Public nuisance — s.270, BNS [old s.268 IPC]. A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act, or is guilty of any illegal omission, which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in the vicinity, or which obstructs the public in the exercise of a common right. Note it is a residual offence — it catches public harms not specifically named elsewhere.

Distinguish the tort. A public nuisance is a criminal offence, and — unlike the tort of nuisance — the State prosecutes it without proof of special damage to any individual. (An individual who suffers special damage over and above the public may separately sue in tort; that is a civil matter.)

Negligent acts endangering public safety (ss.271–280, BNS [old ss.269–294 IPC]). A cluster of offences punishing conduct that endangers the public:

• s.271 — negligent act likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease;
• s.272 — malignant act likely to spread infection;
• s.274–276 — adulteration of food, drink or drugs;
• s.278–280 — negligent conduct with poison, fire, explosives or a dangerous structure/animal.

The unifying idea. These offences protect the public at large from dangers created by careless or malicious individuals — the shopkeeper who sells adulterated food, the person who lets a dangerous animal loose, the one who obstructs a public road. The victim is the community.

🧩 Worked example. A keeps a rotting heap of refuse outside his shop on a public street, causing a stench and a health hazard to everyone passing. This is a public nuisance (s.270) — a common injury/annoyance to the public — and the State may prosecute without any individual proving special damage. If A instead sells adulterated food likely to harm consumers, that is the graver offence under s.274.

s.270, BNS: “A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.”

In Simple Terms: a public nuisance is any act or omission that harms, endangers or annoys the public in general — and the State can punish it without any one person having to prove a special loss. A separate set of sections punishes careless acts that spread disease or poison the public.

flowchart TD
    PN["PUBLIC NUISANCE & PUBLIC SAFETY"] --> N["s.270 Public nuisance — common injury/danger/annoyance; NO special damage needed"]
    PN --> INF["ss.271–272 Spreading infection"]
    PN --> AD["ss.274–276 Adulteration of food/drink/drugs"]
    PN --> DG["ss.278–280 Poison, fire, explosives, dangerous structures"]

Case Laws

• Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand (1980) — public nuisance and the public duty to abate it; the criminal and civil dimensions.

Mischief

Slash your neighbour’s tyres, poison his crop, breach a canal to flood his field — you have gained nothing, but you have destroyed something and caused wrongful loss. That is mischief: the crime of causing harm to property, driven not by greed but by the wish to damage.

Mischief — s.324, BNS [old s.425 IPC]. Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any change in it that destroys or diminishes its value or utility, commits mischief.

Essentials:

1. Intention or knowledge of causing wrongful loss or damage (the mens rea);
2. Causing destruction of property, or a change diminishing its value or utility (the actus reus).

Two important points:

• The offender need gain nothing. Mischief is defined by the loss caused to another, not by any benefit to the doer. (This distinguishes it from theft, where the offender takes for himself.)
• One may commit mischief on property he part-owns, or even, in some situations, jointly — the section protects the interest injured. An Explanation clarifies that mischief may be committed on property the offender owns jointly with the victim.

Aggravated forms (ss.325–333). Mischief is graver when it causes damage of a certain value, or is committed by fire or explosive (s.326 — mischief by fire causing destruction of a house, etc.), by killing or maiming an animal, or by injuring public infrastructure (water supply, roads, etc.).

🧩 Worked example. A, out of spite, pours poison into B’s well, making the water unfit for use. A gains nothing, but he has caused a change in B’s property that destroys its utility, intending wrongful loss to B — this is mischief (s.324). Because it also affects a water source, an aggravated form may apply. Contrast theft: had A instead drawn water for himself, that would be theft, not mischief — mischief is about destroying, not taking.

s.324(1), BNS: “Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits ‘mischief’.”

In Simple Terms: mischief is deliberately damaging or destroying property to cause someone loss — even though you gain nothing yourself. Slashing tyres, poisoning a well, breaking a machine: the crime is the destruction, not any profit.

flowchart TD
    MI["MISCHIEF s.324"] --> E1["Intent/knowledge to cause wrongful loss/damage"]
    MI --> E2["Destruction of property OR change diminishing value/utility"]
    MI --> K["Offender gains NOTHING — defined by loss to victim"]
    MI --> AG["Aggravated ss.325–333: by fire/explosive, killing an animal, damaging public works"]

Case Laws

• Indian Oil Corporation v NEPC India Ltd. (2006) — explained the ingredients of mischief: intention/knowledge to cause wrongful loss and damage to property.

Criminal trespass

Step onto another’s land to annoy him, and you commit criminal trespass. Step into his house, and it becomes house-trespass. Break in through a hole you made in the wall, and it is house-breaking — the offence graded by where you enter and how.

Criminal trespass — s.329(1), BNS [old s.441 IPC]. Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession — or, having lawfully entered, unlawfully remains there with such intent — commits criminal trespass. The key is the criminal intent accompanying the entry (or the unlawful remaining); a mere trespass without such intent is a civil wrong, not this offence.

House-trespass — s.329(3)/(4), BNS [old s.442 IPC]. Criminal trespass committed by entering into or remaining in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or for worship or custody of property. The graver setting — a home or place of worship — makes it a graver offence.

House-breaking — s.331, BNS [old ss.445–446 IPC]. House-trespass committed by entering or exiting through means the law treats as “breaking” — e.g. through a hole made for the purpose, over a wall, by opening a fastening, by forcing a door, or by entering a way not meant for entry. House-breaking by night (after sunset and before sunrise) is graver still.

The ladder of gravity:

• Criminal trespass — entry on any property with criminal intent;
• House-trespass — the property is a dwelling / place of worship / custody;
• House-breaking — entry/exit by one of the six “breaking” methods;
• House-breaking by night — the gravest, done under cover of darkness.

🧩 Worked example. A, intending to insult B, enters B’s compound uninvited — that is criminal trespass (s.329). If A enters B’s house, it becomes house-trespass. If A gets in by climbing over the boundary wall or forcing open a window to do so, it is house-breaking (s.331) — and if he does it at night, house-breaking by night, the gravest of the four. Each rung up the ladder adds to the punishment because the intrusion is more serious.

s.329(1), BNS: “Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered… unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person… is said to commit ‘criminal trespass’.”

In Simple Terms: trespass becomes a crime only when you enter with a bad intent — to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy. Enter a home and it is house-trespass; break in and it is house-breaking; do it at night and it is graver still.

flowchart TD
    CT["CRIMINAL TRESPASS s.329 — enter property + criminal intent"] --> HT["HOUSE-TRESPASS — into a dwelling / place of worship"]
    HT --> HB["HOUSE-BREAKING s.331 — entry by 'breaking' (hole, wall, forced fastening)"]
    HB --> HBN["HOUSE-BREAKING BY NIGHT — the gravest"]

Case Laws

• Mathri v State of Punjab (1964) — criminal trespass requires the dominant intent to commit an offence or to intimidate/insult/annoy the possessor.

Forgery

Sign another man’s name to a cheque, back-date a document to defeat a claim, forge a will — the crime is forgery: making a false document to deceive, so that the paper itself tells a lie about who made it or when.

Forgery — s.336, BNS [old s.463 IPC]. Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record, or part of one, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, or to support a claim, or to cause a person to part with property, or to commit fraud, commits forgery.

Making a false document — s.335, BNS [old s.464 IPC]. This is the heart of forgery. A person makes a false document who:

1. Dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document (or part), or transmits an electronic record, making it appear to have been made by a person by whom he knows it was not made (a false maker / false authority); or
2. Alters a document after it was made, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently; or
3. Obtains the signature of a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind or deception, does not know the contents of the document he signs.

The essence is a document that tells a lie about itself — about who made it, or its authority or date — not merely a document containing a false statement. (A genuine document with a false statement is a lie; a forged document is a lie about its own authorship or authenticity.)

Aggravated forgery (ss.337–344). Graver where the document forged is a record of a court, a valuable security, will, or authority to make/transfer property (s.338), or where forgery is done to cheat (s.340); using a forged document as genuine (s.340) and making/possessing counterfeit seals (s.341) are separately punished.

🧩 Worked example. A, without authority, signs B’s name on a cheque to draw money from B’s account. He has made a false document (making it appear signed by B, who did not sign) with intent to cause B to part with property — this is forgery (s.336), and being a valuable security, the aggravated form (s.338) applies. Contrast: if A writes a document in his own name containing a false statement, that is a lie but not forgery — because the document does not falsely claim to be made by someone else.

s.335, BNS: “A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record — First — who dishonestly or fraudulently — (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; … with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document… was made, signed, sealed or executed by… a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed…”

In Simple Terms: forgery is making a document that lies about who made it or with whose authority — signing another’s name, faking a will, altering a deed. A document that merely contains a false statement is not forgery; the paper itself must be a counterfeit.

flowchart TD
    FG["FORGERY s.336"] --> FD["Making a FALSE DOCUMENT s.335"]
    FD --> M1["False maker/authority — appears made by another"]
    FD --> M2["Unauthorised alteration after making"]
    FD --> M3["Signature obtained from one who can't know contents"]
    FG --> INT["Intent: damage/injury, support a claim, part with property, fraud"]
    FG --> AG["Aggravated ss.337–344: court records, wills, valuable security; using forged doc as genuine"]

Case Laws

• Sushil Suri v CBI (2011) — explained forgery and making a false document; the document must tell a lie about itself.
• Md. Ibrahim v State of Bihar (2009) — a false statement in a genuine document is not forgery; the document must be falsely made.

Offences relating to property marks

Property and other marks (ss.345–350, BNS [old ss.478–489 IPC]). A property mark is a mark used to denote that property belongs to a particular person (or that goods have passed through a particular manufacturer/dealer). The BNS punishes:

• Using a false property mark (s.345) and counterfeiting a property mark used by another (s.347), intending to deceive or cause injury (s.346 punishes using or tampering with another’s property mark);
• Making or possessing an instrument for counterfeiting a property mark (s.348);
• Selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark (s.349).

Why it exists. Property marks and trade marks are how goods are identified and trusted in commerce. Counterfeiting them deceives buyers, cheats honest traders, and undermines confidence in the market — so the law protects the mark as a badge of origin and ownership. (This runs parallel to civil trade-mark law under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.)

🧩 Worked example. A stamps a well-known manufacturer’s property mark on his own inferior goods, to pass them off as that manufacturer’s, deceiving buyers. He has counterfeited a property mark (s.347) and, in selling the goods, committed the offence under s.349. The wrong is the deception — buyers are misled about the origin and quality of what they purchase.

s.347, BNS: “Whoever counterfeits any property mark used by any other person shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

In Simple Terms: a property mark shows who owns goods or who made them. Faking such a mark — to pass off your goods as another’s — deceives buyers and cheats honest sellers, and the law punishes it.

flowchart TD
    PM["PROPERTY MARKS ss.345–350"] --> A["s.345 Using a false property mark"]
    PM --> B["s.347 Counterfeiting another's property mark"]
    PM --> C["s.348 Instruments for counterfeiting"]
    PM --> D["s.349 Selling goods with a counterfeit mark"]
    PM --> W["Protects the mark as a badge of ORIGIN / OWNERSHIP"]

Case Laws

• (Trade-mark / property-mark cases) — the mark is protected as a badge of origin; counterfeiting deceives the public and injures the honest trader.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNS topics