Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it
Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it. Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law,—. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law,—.
(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) where the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, 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;.
(c) where the notice or information required to be given is required by an order passed under section 394 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 211, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 176 Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| If the notice or information required respects the commission of an offence, etc. | Simple imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| If the notice or information is required by an order passed under sub-section (1) of section 394 of this Sanhita. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | 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.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 176, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When essential ingredients of a dowry-related criminal offence, particularly the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty or harassment for non-payment thereof, are not established beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A, and Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked after the prerequisite of proved dowry-related cruelty or harassment is satisfied. When an appellate court reviews an acquittal and finds that two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, with one view being favourable to the accused as taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not disturb such acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is clearly unreasonable or vitiated by manifest illegality. Courts must scrutinize witness credibility carefully when inconsistencies exist between original complaint and later testimony, and when significant delays in lodging FIR lack satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person bound to give it; Court found insufficient evidence of deliberate omission given family's participation in events
-
Md.shahabuddin vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 176, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Denial of production of an accused in a case for the limited purpose of remand, subject to genuine contingencies under Section 269 Cr.P.C., amounts to denial of both the right to seek bail and the benefits of rights enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code. An accused has an equal right to be tried speedily in all cases in which he is an accused. Section 269 Cr.P.C. does not provide unfettered power to abstain from executing production warrants; it applies only to genuine contingencies such as sickness, infirmity, or genuine time constraints. Where intervening days exist between court dates, jail authorities must facilitate production for limited remand purposes. The court must balance the right to speedy trial in one case with the right to be produced in another case, and indefinite denial of production warrants for extended periods is not justified under Section 269 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Sections under which the Kajimohamadpur PS case no. 182 of 2005 was registered; cited to establish the nature of charges against the petitioner
-
Mahboob Khan vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 176, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal bail applications under Section 439 CrPC, even in cases involving serious charges such as sexual offences against minors, bail may be granted to an accused who has undergone substantial custody, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, without prejudging the merits of the case. The court's role is to balance the right to liberty with the need to ensure appearance and prevent abuse of process.
On this section: Charge against petitioner for act done by public servant in excess of duty or in violation of law
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 211
What have the courts held on Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka (07 Aug 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 176, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person bound to give it; Court found insufficient evidence of deliberate omission given family's participation in events. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2017.
Is Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 211 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 Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 211 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 211, section 211 BNS, section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 211 and 212. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka (07 Aug 2014).
What should I read with Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 394 (Order for notifying address of previously convicted offender), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 176 (Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 211 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 211, 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.