Section 165A
Section 165A 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 165A, 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
The State of Maharshtra vs Janardan Piloba Anpat& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere recovery of money from the possession of a public servant, divorced from reliable substantive evidence establishing demand and acceptance of gratification as a motive or reward for an official act, is insufficient to establish an offence under Section 161 IPC or Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) the public servant demanded gratification, (2) the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render an official act, and (3) the circumstances establish the corrupt nexus. When the substantive evidence regarding demand and acceptance is unreliable, contradictory, or creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted, and an appellate court should not interfere with such acquittal unless it is perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence.
On this section: Punishment for abetment of offence defined in Section 161 or Section 165. The court held that abetment liability cannot be established when the principal offence itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Nishikant Bhaskarrao Kulkarni Since Deceased through Legal Heirs vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand for illegal gratification by the accused is a sine qua non (essential prerequisite) for constituting an offense. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt with corroboration in material particulars. Recovery of tainted currency alone is insufficient for conviction. Additionally, the sanction to prosecute a public servant must be granted by the sanctioning authority with proper application of independent mind after considering all relevant facts and evidence; a sanction granted mechanically based on administrative resolutions or without independent consideration is invalid and vitiates the entire prosecution.
On this section: Abetment of bribery by offering gratification. The court noted that after introduction of this section, the complainant cannot be placed on a better footing than an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars is essential.
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 165A
What have the courts held on Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code?
The State of Maharshtra vs Janardan Piloba Anpat& ANR. (16 Jul 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for abetment of offence defined in Section 161 or Section 165. The court held that abetment liability cannot be established when the principal offence itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below.
How do I find court cases under Section 165A 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 165A, section 165A IPC, section 165A 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 The State of Maharshtra vs Janardan Piloba Anpat& ANR. (16 Jul 2019).
What should I read with Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 165A, 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.