Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person
Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonme 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
IIIustration
A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z's favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 166, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 198 Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 7
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Indian Evidence Act s. 162 Production of documents
- Indian Christian Marriage Act s. 72
- Indian Christian Marriage Act s. 72 Issuing certificate after expiry of notice, or, in case of minor, within fourteen days after notice, or against authorized prohibition
- Kerala Maritime Board Act s. 93 Persons employed under this Act to be public servants for certain purposes
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.
-
Chetan Janardhan Kamble vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a crime occurs within the jurisdiction of a High Court and that High Court has already taken suo moto cognizance through a Public Interest Litigation and is adequately monitoring the investigation, the Supreme Court should not divest the High Court of proceedings and assume monitoring responsibility itself. However, to build confidence in the justice system and allay apprehensions regarding the impartiality of investigation and protection of vulnerable parties, the Supreme Court may direct that security be provided by central forces (CRPF) rather than state police, even when state police arrangements are technically adequate, as a confidence-building measure. The Supreme Court should respect the jurisdictional boundaries of High Courts while ensuring that fundamental rights and fair investigation standards are maintained.
On this section: Sections cited in petition for offences relating to police misconduct, destruction of evidence, and criminal intimidation
-
Public Mail vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a matter involving a serious crime has already been taken suo moto cognizance by the jurisdictional High Court, and the State Government has itself requested independent investigation by the CBI which has commenced, the Supreme Court should not assume direct monitoring of the investigation but should defer to the High Court which is better positioned to monitor the investigation within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court may issue specific directions on matters of immediate concern, such as protection of the victim's family and witnesses, to build public confidence in the justice system.
On this section: These sections relate to offences by public servants, false evidence, destruction of evidence, and criminal intimidation. The petitioners sought registration of offences under these sections against government officials allegedly involved in the illegal cremation and destruction of evidence.
-
Tummala Lakshmana Rao vs Sri Sadhu Narayana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant, including a judge, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 166, and 167 IPC (offences committable only by public servants), previous sanction of the appropriate Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C is a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of such offences. Additionally, judicial acts performed by judges in exercise of their judicial powers are protected by Section 77 IPC, and official actions taken pursuant to judicial orders are protected by Section 78 IPC. Private criminal complaints against judges for acts performed in their judicial capacity are not maintainable, and the proper remedy is through appellate courts, not collateral criminal proceedings.
On this section: Public servant disobeying law and public servant framing incorrect record; court held these offences require Section 197 Cr.P.C sanction as they are committable only by public servants
-
Sureshkumar vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When investigation into a grave offence involving death in custody is conducted in a casual manner with procedural irregularities such as filing absconding charge sheet against available accused without proper interrogation, and when custodial interrogation is necessary to establish facts, anticipatory bail should not be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and the accused should be directed to surrender and seek regular bail.
On this section: Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury; applied to prison officials
-
Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For prosecution of a public servant (police officer) for offences under Sections 193, 195, and 196 IPC (relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings), a written complaint from the court in relation to which the offences were committed is mandatory under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Additionally, for prosecution under Sections 166 and 167 IPC for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duty, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority is necessary. Absence of these procedural requirements renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Offence of disobeying law with intent to cause injury. Court held that no offence is made out as there is no evidence that the petitioner disobeyed any law with intent to cause injury to respondent.
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 166
What have the courts held on Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code?
Chetan Janardhan Kamble vs Union of India (27 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Sections cited in petition for offences relating to police misconduct, destruction of evidence, and criminal intimidation. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 166 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 166, section 166 IPC, section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 166a and ipc 166 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chetan Janardhan Kamble vs Union of India (27 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 198 (Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called public servant bribery, and cited as IPC 166, 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.