Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture
Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. 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 thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 217, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 255 Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Fabricating false evidence; appellant was charged under this section
-
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, framing incorrect record, and wrongfully concealing record; court held Section 197 Cr.P.C sanction is mandatory
-
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: Fabricating false evidence; cited in charges
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 217
What have the courts held on Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Fabricating false evidence; appellant was charged under this section. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 217 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 217, section 217 IPC, section 217 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 217 in bns and ipc 217 218. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024).
What should I read with Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 255 (Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 217, 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.