Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it
Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it. Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same,— (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same,—
(a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) and where the document or electronic record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Illustration.
A, being legally bound to produce a document before a District Court, intentionally omits to produce the same. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 210, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 175 Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it Text carried over almost unchanged 85%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce or deliver it. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | The Court in which the offence is committed, subject to the provisions of Chapter XXVIII; or, if not committed, in a Court, any Magistrate. |
| If the document is required to be produced in or delivered to a Court. | Simple imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | The Court in which the offence is committed, subject to the provisions of Chapter XXVIII; or, if not committed, in a Court, any Magistrate. |
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.
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Decided under Indian Penal Code 175, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Offences relating to omission or refusal to do something by persons bound or required to do so, which may amount to contempt when committed by judicial officers
-
M/a Airfreight Ltd.& ORS. vs V.m.shevade and Anr.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 175, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks to claim protection or exemption based on Supreme Court orders to which it was not a party, and such protection is contingent upon establishing disputed factual prerequisites (such as registration status with a regulatory authority), the criminal complaint cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The complainant must be afforded an opportunity to establish its allegations through evidence, and disputed facts must be resolved through the trial process rather than at the stage of considering preliminary applications.
On this section: Applied as the criminal provision under which the complaint was filed against petitioners for engaging unregistered security guards
-
Smt Gracy Pereira vs Parish Priest
Decided under Indian Penal Code 175, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An interim order dismissing an application is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 378(4) CrPC, and where a party has complied with court orders for document production, allegations of willful disobedience under Section 175 IPC cannot be sustained.
On this section: Willful disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant; applied to allege non-production of documents ordered by court
-
Radhey Shyam vs Chandra Mohan Sharma
Decided under Indian Penal Code 175, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of alleged incorrect statements made during the bail application after a considerable period of time (three years in this case) has elapsed, especially when the case has progressed to the trial stage with charges framed and prosecution evidence scheduled, absent fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances that would justify such cancellation.
On this section: Additional charges framed against the accused relating to failure to produce documents and obstruction of justice
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelli vs Vivek Nagpal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 175, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a respondent has successfully challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings through a revision petition and the trial court has subsequently cancelled all further proceedings and discharged the surety, a subsequent order of the trial court granting a final opportunity for prosecution evidence becomes infructuous and should be quashed, as the proceedings have been brought to a close by the earlier order of the High Court.
On this section: Offence of non-appearance in response to summons - cited as basis for prosecution of respondent
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 210
What have the courts held on Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj (23 Mar 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 175, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Offences relating to omission or refusal to do something by persons bound or required to do so, which may amount to contempt when committed by judicial officers. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2003 to 2018.
Is Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 210 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 The Court in which the offence is committed, subject to the provisions of Chapter XXVIII; or, if not committed, in a Court, any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 210 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 210, section 210 BNS, section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 210(1)a and bns 210 1 a in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj (23 Mar 2018).
What should I read with Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 175 (Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 210, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.