Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life
Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 269, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 271 Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Rregulabanda Manikanta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who negligently keeps a commercial establishment open in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders during a COVID-19 pandemic, thereby creating a risk of spreading dangerous disease infection to the public, commits an offence under Section 269 IPC. Upon voluntary admission of guilt by such person, conviction is warranted, and a fine proportionate to the nature of the offence is an appropriate punishment.
On this section: Negligent act likely to spread infection of dangerous disease to life. Applied to the accused's act of keeping vegetable shop open during COVID-19 lockdown, which could spread coronavirus infection to customers and public.
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Thanki Srinivas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A voluntary and uncoerced admission of guilt by an accused person, when properly recorded after examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and after ensuring the accused understands the nature of accusation, is sufficient basis for conviction under Section 252 Cr.P.C without the necessity of adducing oral or documentary evidence. In cases of negligent acts likely to spread dangerous disease during public health emergencies (such as COVID-19 pandemic), operating commercial establishments in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders constitutes an offence under Section 269 IPC, and conviction with appropriate punishment is warranted to protect public health and enforce compliance with emergency regulations.
On this section: Negligent act likely to spread infection of dangerous disease. Applied to the accused's operation of fast food centre during COVID-19 lockdown, which was likely to spread coronavirus infection to the public.
-
Dr. Subhash Chandra Swami vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in an FIR, the FIR cannot be quashed at the writ stage, even if the allegations are disputed or claimed to be baseless by the accused. However, the court may grant interim protection against arrest pending investigation if the nature of allegations and circumstances warrant such protection.
On this section: Sections cited in the FIR relating to negligence, adulteration of drugs, and criminal intimidation. The court examined whether these sections were prima facie applicable to the facts alleged.
-
S.I of police, Mandapeta Rural P.s vs Sanagala Srinu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused voluntarily admits guilt to charges of violating government orders and causing danger to human life, and presents mitigating circumstances such as being the sole breadwinner of dependent family members, the court may impose lenient sentences in the form of fines with imprisonment only in default, while declining to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act if the circumstances do not warrant full probation.
On this section: Negligence or wantonness with respect to act which may spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Applied to convict the accused for acting in manner endangering public health and safety.
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.
-
… Palus, you unlawfully or negligently did an act by violating duly promulgated order of District authority i.e. District Magistrate, which you knew or had reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of Covid19 dangerous to human life & thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Q1. Have you received copies of the Challan ? Ans. Yes. Q2. Have you understood the particulars of the offence read over and explained to you in Marathi ? Ans. Yes. Q3. Do you wish to plead guilty? Ans. I plead guilty. Signature of the …
-
… on 31.05.2020 at about 18.40 hours, at Patel Chowk, Sangli, you were found while walking on the public road without any reason within a period of lock-down and thus he did negligent act likely to spread infection of disease; COVID -19 which is dangerous to life and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 188, 290 & 269 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Plea of Accused 6) Q.1. Have you received copies of police papers? Ans: Yes. Q.2. Have you understood the contents of the plea now read over and explained in Marathi to you? Ans: Yes. Q.3. Do you plead guilty? Ans: Yes, I do plead guilty. …
Questions about Section 269
What have the courts held on Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code?
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Rregulabanda Manikanta (16 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Negligent act likely to spread infection of dangerous disease to life. Applied to the accused's act of keeping vegetable shop open during COVID-19 lockdown, which could spread coronavirus infection to customers and public. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2018 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 269 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 269, section 269 IPC, section 269 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 269 and 270 in bns and ipc 269 270. 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 State Sub Inspector of Police vs Rregulabanda Manikanta (16 Aug 2021).
What should I read with Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 271 (Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 269, 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.