Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it
Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it. Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, 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 w 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, 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; 2. Subs. ibid., for "Zila Judge".
or, if the document is to be produced or delivered up to 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.
Illustration
A, being legally bound to produce a document before a [District court], intentionally omits to produce the same. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 175, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 210 Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it Text carried over almost unchanged 85%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 49
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act s. 15 Jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters of appeal against court martial
- Assam Shops and Establishment Act s. 24
- Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act s. 10 Inspectors
- Consolidation of Holdings Act s. 39
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 18 Persons required to make statements regarding other persons having interest
- Goa, Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 18 Persons required to make statements regarding other persons having interest
- Goa Highways Act s. 18 Persons required to make statements regarding other persons having interest
- Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act-1960 s. 54
- Gujarat Highways Act. 1955 s. 18
- Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act s. 24
- Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services) Act s. 25 Powers and duties of Inspectors
- Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act s. 50
and 37 more
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.
-
Smt Gracy Pereira vs Parish Priest
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An interim order dismissing an application is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 378(4) CrPC, and where a party has complied with court orders for document production, allegations of willful disobedience under Section 175 IPC cannot be sustained.
On this section: Willful disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant; applied to allege non-production of documents ordered by court
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Offences relating to omission or refusal to do something by persons bound or required to do so, which may amount to contempt when committed by judicial officers
-
M/a Airfreight Ltd.& ORS. vs V.m.shevade and Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks to claim protection or exemption based on Supreme Court orders to which it was not a party, and such protection is contingent upon establishing disputed factual prerequisites (such as registration status with a regulatory authority), the criminal complaint cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The complainant must be afforded an opportunity to establish its allegations through evidence, and disputed facts must be resolved through the trial process rather than at the stage of considering preliminary applications.
On this section: Applied as the criminal provision under which the complaint was filed against petitioners for engaging unregistered security guards
-
Radhey Shyam vs Chandra Mohan Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of alleged incorrect statements made during the bail application after a considerable period of time (three years in this case) has elapsed, especially when the case has progressed to the trial stage with charges framed and prosecution evidence scheduled, absent fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances that would justify such cancellation.
On this section: Additional charges framed against the accused relating to failure to produce documents and obstruction of justice
-
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.
-
… Secondly, on the aforesaid dates, being legally bound to produce the report before the Court did intentionally omitted to produce the same before the Court and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 175 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly, after receiving material for publication and the amount being legally bound to submit information before Court, but you intentionally omitted to give such information and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 176 of …
Questions about Section 175
What have the courts held on Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code?
Smt Gracy Pereira vs Parish Priest (10 Jan 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Willful disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant; applied to allege non-production of documents ordered by court. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2003 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 175 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 175, section 175 IPC, section 175 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 175 in bns and ipc 175(3). 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 Smt Gracy Pereira vs Parish Priest (10 Jan 2017).
What should I read with Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
49 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 210 (Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 175, 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.