CHAPTER X OF IPC AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

The contempt powers were limited to courts of record. It was not applicable to lower courts
as they were not courts of record. This defect was remedied under Indian Penal Code, enacted
in 1860. The Code contains a number of provisions to deal with interferences with
administration of justice. Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants is dealt under
Chapter X of Indian Penal Code and of false evidence and offences against public justice is
included in Chapter XI of the Code. Though the Chapters deal with interference with
administration of justice in its various forms, in order to subject a person to the penal
visitation under the offences in Chapter X and XI, the order issued by the public servant must
be legal and its disobedience must be intentional1

The punishment provided under the Code varies from capital punishment to one month’s
simple imprisonment with or without fine, depending upon the gravity of offence. Instead of
specifically using the word contempt of court, the Indian Penal Code uses the word contempt
of lawful authority of public servant. The term public servant under section 21 includes every
judge or a similarly placed person.2

The definition of public servant under section 21 is very wide. Apart from judicial officers,
any person who is incidentally related to administration of justice will also come within the
purview of the term.3 Thus a peon or a person executing a judicial process or a warrant of
arrest,4 a receiver of insolvency,5 a police officer investigating into an offence, 6 prison
authorities7 etc who are incidentally related to administration of justice would come within
the scope of the term. After giving such a wider meaning, Chapters X and XI of the Code
deal with contempt of lawful authority of public servants and of false evidence and offences
against public justice.

The provisions under these chapters are designed to effectively enforce lawful authority of
public servants in discharging their public duties and to ensure that administration of justice

1
Hari Singh Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India 1608 (Law Publishers India Allahabad 1998).
2
The relevant portion of S. 21 Of Indian Penal Code reads-: “Public servant”.-
3
Waryam Singh v Sadhu Singh, AIR 1972 SC 905. In this case police registered fictious criminal cases against
a person who was a complainant in a private complaint initiated against the police. The court observed that
under the head of contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, a magistrate could be covered by the
definition of Public Servants by section 12 of the Indian Penal Code. Id at 907.
4
In re Thimmakka and another, AIR 1942 Mad. 552 , 553.
5
State of Orissa v Ganesh Prasad Dutta, (1962) 1 Cr L J 658, 659.
6
Satya Narain Musadi v State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC506, 508.
7
Nayak R.S. v Anthulay A.R, AIR 1984 SC 684.
is not vitiated by false evidence and offences against public justice. 8 However the limitation
of the provisions under these Chapters is that as an offence under the Code, mens rea is
relevant to attract the offence. 9 Further the proceeding which is initiated under the Code, may
comply with all procedural formalities under Cr.P.C. and Indian Evidence Act.

The first such offence in Indian Penal Code is section 172.10 Section 172 deals with the
offence of absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceedings from any court or
public servant.11When one intentionally prevents issue of summons in any form, he is
punished.12 Where the conduct is in respect of summons issued by court, there is a heavier
penalty.13 Under section 174, when attendance is required under a summons, specifying the
time and place, any intentional violation is prohibited.14 Such a summons must fulfill all
requirements of law. If the summons is defective in any respect, non-compliance of such
summons or order would not attract any offence under this section. 15 Under this section also
when attendance is required before a public servant and attendance is required before court of
justice is dealt under different heads imposing heavier penalty for non-attendance if the
summons is issued by court of justice. 16 Intentional omission to produce or deliver up any
document to any public servant, by person legally bound to produce it is also a punishable
offence.17 If the omission to produce the document is before a court of justice the same is
treated as much serious offence attracting heavier penalty.18

Section 176 deals with interference with intentional omission to give notice or furnish any
information on any subject to a public servant by a person legally bound to give such notice
8
Justice D.A. Desai, Justice M.L. Jain and Dr. N.R. Madhava Menon, 1 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes,
606 (Bharat Law House New Delhi twenty third ed. 1987, reprint 1993)
9
See Nandini Satpathy v Dani. P.L., AIR 1978 SC 1025.
10
S. 172 of I.P.C.
11
Two levels of punishment are specified under section 172. For absconding to avoid summons, order or notice
issued by a public servant, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees.
12
Under section 173
13
Section 173 further reads that if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent,
or to produce a document in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
14
S. 174 reads
15
Puri, Iyer’s Law on Contempt of Courts at 518 (cited in note 13).
16
Under section 174, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court
of Justice, punishment is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
17
7 S. 175 of Indian Penal Code reads -: Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally
bound to produce it.
18
The normal punishment is one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred rupees or with
both. However if the document is to be produced or delivered to a Court of Justice, the punishment is simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or both.
or information.19 Generally such obligation to give notice or furnish information is imposed
by statutes.20 Several statutes impose such obligations on persons to give notice or
information to public servants.21 Heavier penalty is provided if the notice or information
required to be given pertains to the commission of an offence, preventing the commission of
an offence or in order to the apprehension of an offender.22 Section 177 deals with
interference with administration of justice by furnishing false information. 23 Under 177 also,
the liability will arise only if there is a legal obligation to furnish information. 24 If furnishing
false information pertains to the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of
preventing commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender,
punishment could lead to imprisonment up to two years with or without fine. 25 Section 17826
deals with interference with administration of justice by refusing to bind oneself by an oath or
affirmation when duly required by public servant27.

The liability of a person who refuses to make statement after taking oath is dealt under
section 179.28 To constitute an offence under this section, there must be a question by a public
servant and a refusal to answer by the accused.29 The section has a clear link with the right
against self incrimination. Thus in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v P.L.Dani, 30 the Supreme Court
considered the right against self-incrimination and the extent to which section 179 hampered
that right. Adopting a harmonious interpretation between right against self-incrimination and
offence under section 179, the Supreme Court observed that an offence under section 179
was committed where an accused refused to answer a relevant but non - incriminatory
question and where the question was self-incriminatory, refusal to answer that question

19
S. 176 of Indian Penal Code reads -: Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person
legally bound to give it.
20
Budha Singh v King Emperor, AIR 1927 All. 111, 112.
21
See the Foreigners Act, 1946, The Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 Etc.
22
In such situation, the punishment could extend to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
23
S. 177 of Indian Penal Code reads -: Furnishing of false information.
24
Ganpat Subrao Kashyappi v Emperor, AIR 1934 Bom. 202. See also Lakhan v Emperor, AIR1936 All. 788.
25
As per section 177, if the information respects the commission of offence, or is required for the purpose of
preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, the punishment may
extend to two years imprisonment with or without fine.
26
S. 178 of Indian Penal Code reads -: Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to
make it.
27
The punishment for the offence is six months simple imprisonment or a fine of rupees one thousand or with
both
28
S. 179 reads-: Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question.
29
Indira Gandhi v Shah J C, ILR (1980) Del. 1, 2.
30
AIR 1978 SC 1025.
would not attract the offence under section 179.31 The Court also clarified that the section had
an element of mens rea and where there was no wilful refusal but only unwilling omission or
innocent warding off, the offence could not be made out.32

Section 18033 is an extension of section 178. The section is applicable when a person under
the legal obligation to sign any statement made by him, refuses to sign it, when required by a
public servant, who is legally competent to demand the same. 34 The word statement here
means some or other form of deposition made before an officer of justice or other public
servant and is put into writing.35 Section 181 deals with the offence of false statement on oath
or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer oath or affirmation by any
person legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state truth. 36 The liability under this section
would arise only if the public servant is authorized to administer oath or affirmation. 37 The
section applies to perjury committed in proceedings other than a judicial proceeding. 38 Under
section 182, giving false information to any public servant with intent to use his lawful power
to cause injury to another person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. 39
To attract an offence under this section, the information given should be information which
the accused knew or believed to be false.40 Section 183 deals with contempt of lawful
authority of public servant by offering resistance to the taking of property by seizure. 41 The
provision is based on the principle that offering resistance to the seizure of the property by
the lawful authority of a public servant amounts to an overt act of defiance of his authority. 42
The words ‘offers any resistance’ in this section clearly implies something more than mere
verbal protest to seizure but use of force or at least threat to use force. 43 Section 184 is a

31
Id at 1044 - 1045.
32
Id at 1047.
33
3 S. 180 reads -: Refusing to sign statement.
34
The punishment for the offence is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with
fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
35
Desai, Jain and Madhava Menon, 1 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes at 629 (cited in note 88).
36
S. 181 reads-: False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer an
oath or affirmation.
37
Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India at 1645 (cited in note 81).
38
If false evidence is given in judicial proceeding, the same is dealt under section 193 of the Code.
39
9 S. 182 reads - : False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of
another person.
40
Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India at 1656 (cited in note 81).
41
S. 183 reads -: Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.
42
Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India at 1667(cited in note 81).
43
Ramaswamy Goundan, In Re, AIR 1944 Mad. 45, 46. The maximum punishment for an offence under this
section is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or with both.
related provision which deals with obstructing a sale of property offered for sale by the
authority of public servant.44 Under this section whoever intentionally obstructs any sale of
property offered for sale by the lawful authority of any public servant is treated as a
punishable offence.45 Section 185 makes illegal purchase or bid for property held by the
lawful authority of public servant offered for sale by such authority. 46 The section is intended
to prevent bidders who are not bonafide and had no intention of performing their obligation
with regard to property held by lawful authority of public servant.47

Section 186 deals with the offence of voluntarily obstructing public servant in discharge of
his public functions.48 This is a general section which is applicable in every case where a
public servant is obstructed in the discharge of his functions. 49 As judge or any other person
involved in the administration of justice is also a public servant, the section is also effective
to deal with any obstruction caused to a judge when he is involved in adjudicatory
50
proceeding. Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance is
treated as an offence of contempt of lawful authority of public servant under section 187.51 A
proceeding under this section is maintainable only if the person is legally bound to assist the
public servant.52 Further the mere failure to give assistance is not penal under this section,
unless it amounts to an intentional omission. 53 Under section 188,54 if a person is directed to
abstain from certain act, or is directed to take certain orders regarding certain property in his
possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, and if such disobedience
causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed,
is also a punishable offence.55 The section also includes in its ambit the orders passed by
executive authorities under section 144 & 145 of Criminal Procedure Code.56
44
S. 184 reads -: Obstructing sale or property offered for sale by authority of public servant.
45
The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
46
S.185 reads -: Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant.
47
The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which
may extend to two hundred rupees or with both.
48
S. 186 reads - : Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.
49
Desai, Jain and Madhava Menon , 1 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes at 648 (cited in note 88).
50
The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
51
S. 187 reads - : Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance.
52
Ram Prasad v Emperor, AIR 1938 Pat. 403, 407.
53
Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India at 1677 (cited in note 81).
54
S. 188 reads-: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.
55
The normal punishment for the offence is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both. however if such disobedience cause or tends to
cause danger to human life, health or safety, or cause or tend to cause a riot or affray, the punishment may
extend to six months imprisonment, or a fine of rupees one thousand or both.
56
Desai, Jain and Madhava Menon , 1 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes at 648 (cited in note 88).
Section 18957 deals with threat of injury to public servant or to any person in whom he
believes that the public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public
servant to do any act, or forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of
functions of such public servant. As judicial officer is also a public servant within the
meaning of section 21 of I.P.C., the conduct against judicial officer would also attract the
offence under this section58. However to attract an offence under section 189 simple threat
against a public servant would not be enough. It is necessary that the intention of uttering
threat must be to induce the public servant to do or forbear or delay to do any act connected
with the exercise of the public function of such public servant. 59 Section 190 deals with threat
of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant. Under this
section it is an offence to make threats against any person to refrain him from making an
application for protection against any injury to a public servant.60 The term injury in this
regard would mean civil as well as criminal injury. 61 Thus threat against any person to refrain
him from making an application before a court a law would come within section 190.62

57
S. 189 reads - : Threat of injury to public servant.
58
The punishment extends to two years imprisonment or fine or both.
59
Gour, 2 The Penal Law of India at 1719 (cited in note 81).
60
S. 190 reads -: Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant.
61
S. 44 of Indian Penal Code reads: - “injury”. – The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused
to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. See also Mulai Rai v Emperor, AIR 1926 All. 277, 278.
62
The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both.