Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certaincontingencies
Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certaincontingencies. Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certain contingencies. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certain contingencies. Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 267-
(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity Unfit to be removed from the prison; or
(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or
(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained ; or
(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government under section 268 applies,
the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the Court's order and shall send to the Court a statement of reasons for so abstaining :
Provided that where the attendance of such person is required for giving evidence at a place not more than twenty-five kilometres distant from the prison, the officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for the reason mentioned in clause (b).
Section 269, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 304 Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.
On this section: Court held that Section 269 applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders. The provision is meant to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to allow accused to avoid production in other cases. Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on this section as inapplicable to the factual matrix.
-
Md.shahabuddin vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
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: Provides exceptions to production warrant execution; extensively analyzed by the court to determine when jail authorities can abstain from executing production warrants; court held that this section does not provide unfettered power to abstain and contingencies must be genuine and time-limited
-
O.p. Mishra vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prison superintendent cannot be held liable for non-production of an under-trial prisoner when the prisoner is detained in another state's jail by judicial order of a competent court. The duty to produce a prisoner under Sections 267 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to prisoners within the superintendent's custody and control. When a prisoner is detained outside the superintendent's jurisdiction by judicial order, the superintendent is not guilty of non-compliance or dereliction of duty, and the court must appreciate the circumstances that make compliance impossible.
On this section: Cited by petitioner as violated but not specifically analyzed in the judgment. Relates to conditions for prisoner production.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL J U D G M E N T SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondents have placed on record copy of the judicial order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and submits that the Jail Superintendant should not have carried out or implemented or complied with the order dated 29.11.2012. Section 269 of the CrPC which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:- "269. Officer in …
Questions about Section 269
What have the courts held on Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Court held that Section 269 applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders. The provision is meant to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to allow accused to avoid production in other cases. Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on this section as inapplicable to the factual matrix. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2002 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 269, section 269 CRPC, section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type 269 crpc in bnss and 269 crpc pakistan. 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 Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 267 (Power to require attendance of prisoners), section 268 (Power of State Government to exclude certain persons from operation of section 267), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 304 (Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 269, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.