Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant
Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant. Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same,
intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both;
or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A, being legally bound to appear before the [High Court] at Calcutta, in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, being legally bound to appear before a [District Judge], as a witness, in obedience to a summons issued by that [District Judge] intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 174, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 208 Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 9
- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act s. 63 Punishment for false information or failure to give information, etc
- Uttar Pradesh Commission for Minorities Act s. 15 Penalty
- Uttar Pradesh Commission for Minorities Act s. 14
- Uttar Pradesh Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act s. 18 Penalty
- Uttar Pradesh Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act s. 18
- Uttar Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes Act s. 18 Penalty
- Uttarakhand Minority Comission Act s. 4
- Uttarakhand Schedule Caste Comission s. 4
- Uttarakhand Schedule Tribe Comission Act s. 4
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.
-
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant blanket anticipatory bail protecting an accused from arrest for any non-bailable offence, nor can it impose conditions such as prior notice before arrest on the statutory power of arrest vested in investigating authorities under section 104 of Customs Act. Anticipatory bail must be specific to identified offence(s), based on applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and cannot include conditions that interfere with or obstruct the legitimate investigative authority and statutory powers of arrest. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be exercised within statutory limits and cannot be used to impose judicial obstacles to investigation.
On this section: Offences for absconding or refusing to be produced. Court noted these were grounds for criminal complaints filed against respondents for non-cooperation with Customs inquiry.
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Unnatural death procedures
-
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the trial court's conviction and sentence are based on credible evidence and proper legal analysis, and the appellate court (High Court) has not found sufficient grounds to overturn such conviction, the Supreme Court will restore and uphold the conviction. The burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate substantial legal or factual errors in the trial court's judgment. In cases where the appellate authority (CBI) has not pursued appeals in the High Court, and the accused has completed their sentence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the conviction. Grounds for reinvestigation must be substantial and not merely speculative.
On this section: Applied in case of Mohd. Sheikh for causing disappearance of evidence; separate conviction maintained
-
SANJEEV@BITTU vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving proclaimed persons convicted under Section 174-A IPC, the appellate court has discretion to modify the sentence from imprisonment to fine when it finds that imprisonment would not serve any useful purpose and when the larger interest of justice would be better served by imposing a monetary penalty instead, provided the enhanced fine is proportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances.
On this section: Conviction under this section for absconding and concealment to avoid arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had led reliable and trustworthy evidence establishing the appellant's guilt under this section.
-
Sanju vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where a petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, and the underlying offence is related to a specific incident (such as an accident), the High Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction to modify the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly when further imprisonment would serve no penological purpose.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - the substantive offence for which the petitioner was convicted
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in response to proclamation; imposed as consequence of bail violation
-
Omveer Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused person with a similar role in the crime has already been granted bail by the court, the principle of bail parity requires that another accused with similar involvement should also be considered for bail on similar grounds, provided other relevant factors such as period of detention and likelihood of misuse are also favorable. Bail can be granted at the prima facie stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure court attendance and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Failure to appear in obedience to proclamation - consequence of bail misuse
-
Kapil Kumar vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., regardless of whether the offences technically fall within the specific categories enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. The procedure for issuing Non-Bailable Warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in police cases does not require prior issuance of summons and bailable warrants, and the Magistrate has inherent power under Section 73 Cr.P.C. to issue warrants for non-bailable offences when the accused is evading arrest. In economic offences of large magnitude affecting the economic fabric of society, the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in response to proclamation; Court discussed differential punishment for non-appearance under Section 82(1) (3 years) versus Section 82(4) (7 years) proclamations
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: Proceedings for non-appearance after proclamation; mentioned in bail conditions as consequence of breach
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Arshad Khan Pathan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal process cannot be issued under Sections 174 and 187 IPC against a public servant for non-attendance at a meeting when: (1) the complainant has violated mandatory notice requirements prescribed in applicable circulars; (2) the accused employee is subject to service regulations of his own employer requiring prior permission to leave office; and (3) the notice given (telephonic message) is insufficient to comply with both the notice requirements and the employee's employer regulations. The complainant's own procedural violations negate the criminal liability of the accused.
On this section: Relates to neglect or refusal by a public servant to perform a duty imposed by law. The court found this section was not attracted because the respondent was not properly summoned and had valid reasons for non-attendance.
-
Sunil Pandey vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When witness statements recorded during investigation under Section 180 CrPC establish that the alleged victim's death was accidental rather than resulting from criminal acts alleged by the prosecution, and the trial court has failed to consider such evidence in rejecting a bail application, the appellate court should set aside the bail rejection and grant bail to the appellant, particularly where the appellant has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
On this section: Bail condition: trial court may initiate proceedings if appellant fails to appear after proclamation under Section 82 CrPC
-
Irfan vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious offenses under special criminal legislation such as the U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be granted when, after considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, custody duration, likelihood of trial presence, and public interest, the court determines it is a fit case for bail, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure court presence and prevent bail misuse.
On this section: Applied as a consequence for bail misuse and failure to appear on proclamation; proceedings can be initiated under this section
-
Imran vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications involving serious charges under the Gangster Act, the court must balance the severity of the offense and public interest against the accused's right to bail by considering the nature of accusations, evidence, character of the accused, duration of pre-trial detention, and reasonable possibility of securing trial attendance. When these factors collectively indicate it is a fit case for bail, the court may grant bail with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance, prevent witness tampering, and protect public interest, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
On this section: Applied as condition for failure to appear after proclamation; court warned of prosecution under this section for bail misuse
-
Swikar Luthra @ Sonu vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious criminal allegations and where the accused has a history of being a Proclaimed Offender with multiple prior criminal cases registered against him, bail should be denied as the gravity of allegations and the accused's criminal antecedents demonstrate a risk to the administration of justice and the likelihood of non-appearance.
On this section: Offence related to non-appearance in court; cited as one of the charges against the petitioner
-
Nitin vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even in cases involving serious offences under the Excise Act and IPC (Sections 420, 482), bail may be granted when the trial status is unclear and the accused has already undergone substantial pre-trial detention, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure presence during trial and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Applied as consequence for non-appearance after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelli vs Vivek Nagpal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a respondent has successfully challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings through a revision petition and the trial court has subsequently cancelled all further proceedings and discharged the surety, a subsequent order of the trial court granting a final opportunity for prosecution evidence becomes infructuous and should be quashed, as the proceedings have been brought to a close by the earlier order of the High Court.
On this section: Offence of non-appearance in response to summons - cited as basis for prosecution of 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.
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.
-
… (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of subsection (2), a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under section 50 shall also be liable to be proceeded against under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply. — The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation investigation, …
-
… on 04 occasions at the address of one of his firms M/s Global Impex, calling him to appear before the concerned officer on 25.06.2019, 16.07.2019, 22.08.2019 and 17.09.2019 but the petitioner failed to comply with such summons, consequent whereupon a criminal complaint was also filed against the petitioner under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"); - f) That the petitioner was operating under two identities, Naveen Kasera and Naveen Agarwal, which is indicative of his mala-fidé approach towards the law. - 9. In support of their case, the respondents have placed reliance upon the …
Questions about Section 174
What have the courts held on Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code?
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offences for absconding or refusing to be produced. Court noted these were grounds for criminal complaints filed against respondents for non-cooperation with Customs inquiry. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 174 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 174, section 174 IPC, section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 174a and ipc 174 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008).
What should I read with Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 208 (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 174, 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.