Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding
Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding. Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand r 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished 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.
Section 228, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 267 Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 60
- Administrative Tribunals Act s. 30 Proceedings before a Tribunal to be judicial proceedings
- Advocates Act s. 42 Powers of disciplinary committee
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Rules s. 53 Procedure
- Air Force Act s. 151 Powers of courts-martial when certain offences are committed by persons not subject to this Act
- Alok Udyog Vanaspati And Plywood Limited ( Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings ) Act s. 21
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands Excise Regulati0n s. 61
- Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act s. 52
- Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act s. 70 Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents
- Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act s. 50 Powers of and procedure before Tribunal
- Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act s. 56 Procedure and powers of competent authority and appellate authority
- Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Development Enabling Act s. 40
- Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Tribes Act s. 11 Powers of the Commission
and 48 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.
-
Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Advocate Convicted Of Criminal Contempt Of Court For Intimidating And Threatening A Judge, Who Refuses To Show Remorse Or Tender Sincere Apology, And Whose Conduct Constitutes A Repeated Pattern Of Disrespect Toward The Judiciary, Can Be Punished Under The Contempt Of Courts Act And Debarred From Appearing In Courts Till Purging Contempt (Demonstrated Through Genuine Remorse And Sincere Apology). Additionally, Conviction For Contempt Involving Moral Turpitude Results In Suspension Of The Advocate's Enrollment Under Section 24A For Two Years, And The Supreme Court Can Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Under Section 38 Of The Advocates Act To Impose Additional Disciplinary Suspension (License Suspension) For A Further Period When The Bar Council Fails To Take Action After Reference, Provided That The Court Has Given The Advocate Sufficient Opportunity To Purge Contempt.
On this section: Contempt Of Court. The Appellant Argued That This Section Could Have Been Applied Instead Of The Contempt Act. The Court Held That The Choice Of Procedure Lay With The Judicial Officer.
-
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: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant conducting judicial proceedings
-
Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.
On this section: Offence of intentionally omitting to give notice. Cited in relation to Superintendent of Police's case.
-
Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.
On this section: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant; cited against Superintendent of Police
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 228
What have the courts held on Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code?
Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P (05 Jul 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Contempt Of Court. The Appellant Argued That This Section Could Have Been Applied Instead Of The Contempt Act. The Court Held That The Choice Of Procedure Lay With The Judicial Officer. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 228 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 228, section 228 IPC, section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 228a and ipc 228 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P (05 Jul 2016).
What should I read with Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
60 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 267 (Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 228, 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.