Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 199 – Public servant disobeying direction under law

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 70, section 71, section 74, section 76, section 77, section 79, section 124, section 143 or section 144,

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.

Simplified Explanation

Section 199 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 outlines specific offenses by public servants who knowingly disobey legal directions during investigations. This provision ensures that public servants adhere strictly to procedural and substantive laws in their investigative duties, particularly when handling sensitive matters. Let us break this down systematically:

Key Provisions of Section 199

1. Nature of the Offense

The section penalizes three distinct categories of misconduct by public servants:

(a) Disobedience of legal prohibitions on summoning individuals:

• If a law prohibits a public servant from requiring someone’s attendance at a place for investigations, knowingly disregarding this prohibition constitutes an offense.
• Example: A police officer summoning a witness to a police station for questioning, despite being legally prohibited from doing so, violates this provision.

(b) Disobedience in conducting investigations:

• If a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of law regulating the method of conducting investigations, and such disobedience prejudices a person, it is an offense.
• Example: A public servant failing to follow prescribed rules for evidence collection, leading to harm or disadvantage to an accused or victim, falls under this clause.

(c) Failure to record information about certain cognizable offenses:

• Public servants are mandated to record information under Section 173(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to FIRs in the Indian Penal Code framework).
• Failure to record information related to specific cognizable offenses (Sections 64, 65, 66, etc.) amounts to an offense under this clause.
• Example: A police officer refusing to register a complaint of a cognizable offense like robbery (Section 64) or murder (Section 65) violates this provision.

2. Punishment

• Rigorous imprisonment: Minimum six months, extendable up to two years.
• Fine: In addition to imprisonment, the public servant is liable to pay a fine.

The mandatory minimum sentence underscores the seriousness of the offense, reflecting its critical impact on the justice delivery system.

Purpose and Objectives

1. Accountability in Investigations:
   • Investigations are the foundation of justice. Any deviation from prescribed legal procedures can undermine trust in the legal system.
   • This section ensures public servants act in accordance with their legal mandates, respecting citizens’ rights.
2. Protection of Individual Rights:
   • The provision guards against abuse of power by public servants during investigations, ensuring fair treatment of individuals.
3. Obligation to Record Cognizable Offenses:
   • Ensuring timely and accurate registration of complaints is essential to uphold citizens’ rights to justice.
   • This clause prevents public servants from ignoring or suppressing genuine grievances.
4. Safeguard Against Prejudice:
   • The law explicitly addresses situations where non-compliance with investigative procedures causes harm or prejudice to individuals.

Understanding with Examples

Scenario 1: Unlawful Summoning

A law prohibits summoning a victim of sexual assault to the police station for investigation, requiring the police officer to visit the victim’s residence instead. If the officer disregards this and summons the victim to the station, they violate Section 199(a).

Scenario 2: Procedural Disobedience

An investigation requires a search warrant before entering private premises. A public servant conducts a search without obtaining the warrant, leading to unlawful evidence collection. This violates Section 199(b), especially if the accused is prejudiced by the action.

Scenario 3: Refusal to Record FIR

A woman approaches a police station to report a cognizable offense like assault under Section 67 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. If the public servant refuses to record her statement or deliberately delays it, this violates Section 199(c).

Relation to Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

• Section 199(c) explicitly references Section 173(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which deals with the obligation to record information about cognizable offenses.
• The inclusion of specific offenses (Sections 64, 65, etc.) highlights the importance of these crimes in the overall framework of justice.

Comparison with Prior Legislation

• Section 199 modernizes the approach of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing procedural integrity and individual rights in investigations.
• Unlike earlier laws, this section imposes a mandatory minimum sentence, signaling a stricter stance against procedural violations.

Key Takeaways for Law Students

• Procedural Adherence: Public servants are bound to follow legal mandates meticulously during investigations.
• Intent and Knowledge: The offense requires intentional disobedience, reinforcing the need to establish “mens rea.”
• Systemic Accountability: The section aims to enhance transparency and accountability in law enforcement.