Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with public servant unlawfully engaging in trade. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 168 Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade. | Simple imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both, or community service. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rasik Behari Mathur vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 168, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant cannot be prosecuted under Section 168 IPC for merely providing his signature on family property documents for obtaining a loan when: (1) he has already notified his employer about the family business involvement; (2) the property has been legitimately partitioned among family members; (3) his signature is required only as a formality since the original title is in his name; and (4) a single transaction or isolated act cannot constitute 'trade' within the meaning of Section 168 IPC. Similarly, criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be established merely by virtue of a public servant owning family property or providing signature for family loan transactions without evidence of corrupt or illegal means of obtaining pecuniary advantage or abuse of official position.
On this section: Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade - primary issue; court held that mere provision of signature for family loan does not constitute 'trade' and single transaction cannot be characterized as trade
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 202
What have the courts held on Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Rasik Behari Mathur vs State (28 May 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 168, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade - primary issue; court held that mere provision of signature for family loan does not constitute 'trade' and single transaction cannot be characterized as trade.
Is Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 202, section 202 BNS, section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Rasik Behari Mathur vs State (28 May 2007).
What should I read with Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 168 (Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 202, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.