Section 165
Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rep. by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), s. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Rep. by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), s. 31.
Section 165, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
No provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is textually close to this one. No close match found
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 5
- Central Provinces Court of Wards Act s. 19 Liabilities, etc., of managers and other servants of Court of Wards
- Indian Telegraph Act s. 31 Bribery
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Central Act 13 of 1885) s. 31 Bribery
- Kerala Court of Wards Act, 1967 (President's Act No.3 of 1967) s. 63 Repeal
- Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act s. 30
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.
-
State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The authority competent to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a public servant accused of corruption is the authority competent to remove the public servant from service, not merely from a particular office. In the case of a deputed employee, where the power to repatriate is distinct from the power to remove from service, only the authority possessing the power to remove from service (typically the parent organization) is competent to grant prosecution sanction, even if the corrupt act was committed while performing duties for the deputing organization. Repatriation constitutes a change of posting or transfer, not removal from office within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c).
On this section: Public servant obtaining valuable things without consideration; cited as substantive corruption offence
-
Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR and charge sheet under Section 498A IPC can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A. Specifically, mere cessation of financial support, lack of affection, marital estrangement, or disputes arising from the use of dowry money do not constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498A unless accompanied by: (i) conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health (Explanation a), or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands for property or on account of failure to meet such demands (Explanation b). The absence of either ingredient renders the prosecution fundamentally baseless and subject to quashing.
On this section: Referenced in citation of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for comparative analysis on when criminal prosecution can be quashed.
-
Mota Ram vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant who accepts money from a citizen in exchange for false promises of job selection commits the offense of illegal gratification under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The acceptance of such gratification is established when: (a) the complainant was not in a financial position to lend money to the public servant; (b) the public servant's behavior in obtaining receipts only for partial refunds and only for the final amount in the presence of witnesses indicates consciousness of guilt and an attempt to create false evidence; (c) the public servant cannot provide a credible explanation for the abnormal pattern of refunds. The minimum sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment prescribed under Section 5(2) is appropriate and grounds such as case age, partial jail time served, or refund of amount do not constitute valid mitigating circumstances.
On this section: Applied to convict the appellant for criminal misconduct by a public servant. The Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under this section.
-
Mota Ram vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Public Servant Solicits Money From A Citizen By Falsely Promising To Use His Official Position To Secure A Benefit (Such As Government Employment), The Money So Obtained Constitutes Illegal Gratification Punishable Under Section 5(2) Of The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1947, Even If The Money Is Subsequently Repaid. The Subsequent Repayment And The Manner Of Obtaining A Receipt For Only A Portion Of The Money In The Presence Of Witnesses, Rather Than Strengthening The Claim That It Was A Loan, Serves As Circumstantial Evidence Of Consciousness Of Guilt And An Attempt To Create False Documentary Evidence. Mitigating Circumstances Such As The Age Of The Case, Partial Imprisonment Already Undergone, And Repayment Of The Amount Do Not Justify Reducing The Minimum Mandatory Sentence Prescribed Under The Statute.
On this section: Public Servant Obtaining Gratification Without Authority Or Expectation To Which He Is Not Legally Entitled. The Court Applied This Section Concurrently With Section 5(2) PCA And Sentenced The Appellant To One Year Rigorous Imprisonment, With Both Sentences Running Concurrently.
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 165
What have the courts held on Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code?
State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora (18 Mar 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Public servant obtaining valuable things without consideration; cited as substantive corruption offence. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 165 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 165, section 165 IPC, section 165 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora (18 Mar 2013).
What should I read with Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 165, 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.