Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed
Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed. Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;
if abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.
if abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.--and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing. A some favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.
(c) A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, and also to fine.
(d) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.
Section 116, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 56 Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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.
Referred to by 10
- Assam Excise Act s. 66
- Indian Electricity Act s. 39A
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act s. 29 Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy
- Place Of Worship Act 1991 s. 6
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act s. 6 Punishment for contravention of section 3
- Sikkim Anti Drugs Act s. 11
- Sikkim Excise Act s. 54
- United Provinces Excise Act 1910 s. 69B Penalty for abetment
- United Provinces Excise Act s. 69
- United Provinces Opium Smoking Act s. 17
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.
-
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person or company cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party information) when engaged in illegal drug trafficking operations. Section 79 provides immunity only from prosecution under the Information Technology Act itself, not from prosecution under other statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When a company uses technology platforms and internet services as a facade to actively facilitate, design, develop, host, and control the distribution of banned psychotropic substances, it is not a mere intermediary but an active participant in the illegal trade and can be prosecuted under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Bail should be denied when overwhelming inculpatory evidence establishes a prima facie case and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or would not resume illegal activities.
On this section: Referenced in Section 29(1) of NDPS Act regarding criminal conspiracy; Section 29 provides that abetment or conspiracy is punishable notwithstanding anything in Section 116 IPC
-
Sheo Jee Sah vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks High Court intervention in a writ petition based on alleged police recommendations for criminal prosecution, the petitioner must provide copies of the actual recommendations and supporting materials to enable the court to examine the matter. Without such documentary evidence, the High Court cannot intervene directly but should direct the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum or authority competent to take action on such recommendations.
On this section: Section 116 IPC provides for punishment for breach of bond to keep the peace. The police report recommended prosecution under this section for alleged violation of the Section 107 CrPC order.
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 116
What have the courts held on Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau (03 Dec 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Referenced in Section 29(1) of NDPS Act regarding criminal conspiracy; Section 29 provides that abetment or conspiracy is punishable notwithstanding anything in Section 116 IPC. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2012.
How do I find court cases under Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 116, section 116 IPC, section 116 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau (03 Dec 2007).
What should I read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
10 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 56 (Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 116, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.