Indian Penal Code - IPC166: Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person

Indian Penal Code:

IPC 166: Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person

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 to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

IIIustration:

A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z's favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

In a recent amendment in 2018, IPC 166A & IPC 166B, have been added to original IPC 166, It relates to non-registration of FIR & not following mandatory procedures in case of sexual offences related to women.

But, here we will discuss only the broader aspects of IPC 166, which relates to Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.

IPC 166 is non-cognizable & Bailable.

Triable by Magistrate First Class

Punishment: Simple Imprisonment for 1 Year or Fine or Both

The offence is not Compoundable (No settlement between parties)

You can file a private Complaint with the magistrate first class (under CRPC Section 200) for charging any public servant for the offence of IPC 166.

Prior Sanction from the Government is required before prosecuting any Public Servant under this law. 

***

As simple this law sounds easy to read, that much difficult it is to prove.

To understand this law, I went through almost 150 to 200 past cases on https://indiankanoon.org

It is very difficult to prove this offence for the acts done by a public servant while discharging his duty. 

One has to be extra cautious before filing a complaint with the court against any public servant under IPC 166. Hence, always take the help of a professional lawyers for such kind of litigations.

There is a very thin line between errors done while performing official Duty or required to be done to perform the official duty successfully And, act done opposite to any law with intent to cause injury.

A Public Servant not performing his duty properly (dereliction of duty) or doing errors can only attract 'Disciplinary action' against him from the seniors of his department and will not attract IPC 166.

To prove IPC 166, an act done by a public servant has to be totally opposite to any Law in force and that too with intent to cause Injury.

Disciplinary actions are taken by the seniors of the department against its staff. It is like an employer-employee relation. If an employee makes a mistake, the employer might cut his salary or can reduce his designation or can take away some responsibility, change his department, etc. Employer will not put him behind the bar.

So when error is done during performance of duty, you can Complaint to seniors of the department or to grievances department/vigilance department, etc., but you can not sue the public servant for IPC 166 offence.

The error has to be a major violation of any of the law in force.

Majority of the cases I went through had been later quashed by the higher courts, Because, it was proved that it was an error done while performing official Duty and attracted disciplinary action but not IPC 166 offence.

Police officer holding an accused from the collar while taking him to the police station although not recommended but can be pardoned since this act is required to successfully perform a duty. Which means, this act is required so that the accused doesn't run away, hence it will not be called as an offense under IPC 166 . (manhandled during arrest leading to minor Injuries, will not attract 166.)

But if an accused suffers severe injuries while he is in police custody, it can attract the offence of IPC 166, as a Police officer can not use force when the accused is in police custody. (Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab: no sanction required for custodial torture having no connection with the official duty.)

And this is the reason, prior sanction from the government is mandatory (as per CRPC 197) before prosecuting any public servant under IPC 166, 167 and other similar offences by public servants.

Here concerned government departments will check whether the act complained of was normal error while performing his duty and something which requires to be done to successfully perform official duty Or act done doesn't fall under his duty & it appears a gross violation of any existing law in force.

This is the reason I request all the Indian citizens to know the various laws in India. As, when you know the law, you also come to know which acts by public servants are against the law.

This sanction procedure also helps & protects a genuine public servant from false Complaint being initiated against him in order to create pressure on him.

There is Three months timeline for the concerned government ministry to revert to the application of sanction for prosecution.

An extension of one month period may be allowed and at the end of the time limit of extended period if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution.

FIR against Public Servant can be quashed by HC/SC if no prior sanction is taken before registering FIR especially when there is prima facie relation of an act with official duty.

Public servants can not be summoned even for enquiry by magistrate without Sanction in case of IPC 166 accusations.

But, one more important aspect is that Sanction is required for prosecuting only those public servants (usually Senior Officers) which are removable only by State Government or Central Government.

Usually lower rank staff are removable by head of the respective department and State/Central Government permission not required for such removal. In such cases, no prior sanction is required for prosecuting them.

No Sanction for Inspector, Sub-inspector & ASI rank Police.

Some of the successful cases I came across regarding IPC 166 offence against Public Servant:

Tractor seized illegally by Police officer, held guilty of 166 & 384 extortion

Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Police SI jailed in 2020 for not following procedure of arrest:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191857134/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/contempt-case-4-week-jail-for-si/article30686295.ece/amp

Food & Drug department officer charged IPC 166

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1982599/

Registrar of Society charged for IPC 166

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/286292/

Not issuing irrigation License despite order of senior officials amounts to offence u/s 166:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/343613/

Refusal to pay wage allowance to the government worker by authority as mentioned in the payment of wages act attracts IPC 166 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139065/

The petitioner is a public servant and was legally required to issue a domicile certificate in accordance with the procedure.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154093864/

166 A of the IPC (Public servant disobeying direction under law) and 217 (public servant disobeying law with intent) against the negligent police officers and corporation officials

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/will-ensure-those-who-put-illegal-banners-are-sent-jail-traffic-ramaswamy-tnm-108972

Written Complaint to SHO not accepted by SHO:

Under the Andhra Pradesh Police Code the powers and the duties of the police officers have codified. Under the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual also the powers and duties of the police officers have been specified. If there is any dereliction of the duties or disobedience of any direction of law, they are not only liable for punishment under Section 166 IPC but also liable for disciplinary proceedings under Chapter 10 of AP Police Manual.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1541849/

Intention need not be explicit. It can be implied from conduct. When an officer, who is a repository of power entrusted with duties of a trustee, acts in disobedience of such legal responsibilities, that can only be intentional when it is shown that due care and caution expected of a trustee is not exercised.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10023818/

***

IPC 166 Offence can be committed only during the course of performance of his duty as public servant.

It does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant.

Taking bribe is not act done during the course of duty:

- State of Maharashtra vs. Narhar Rao (AIR 1966 SC 1783) 

- and the State of Maharashtra vs. Ram and Ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1786)

- Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur (supra)

Sanction not required for IPC offences of cheating, conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by Public Servant

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/blow-to-cbi-in-cheating-case-against-rana-kapoor/articleshow/77026867.cms

Offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 etc. can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty (vide Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1).

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158296275/

***

The disobedience must be of a direction of law and not an order of a Court.

Further, this direction must be with respect to the conduct of such a public servant.

the disobedience, if any, of the injunction granted by the court can be punishable either under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 C.P.C. but it does not amount to any offence under Section 166 I.P.C.

(The disobedience of the temporary injunction is not contemplated as an offence under Section 166 I.P.C. and for that recourse could have been taken to Order XXXIX, Rule 2 C.P.C. or for proceedings for contempt of court.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1778760/)

Not supplying Copy of FIR to complainant or accused or to magistrate as per 154 (2) is violation of CRPC. But it will attract disciplinary action & not offence under 166. 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158986442/

Notice served if any by any public servant, should have to be again the law or procedure mentioned in the law.

The expression 'direction' in Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, includes both, the direction contained in the statute itself and the direction which may be given to a public servant by an authority competent to give directions under any law for the time being in force, mandating the doing of the act mentioned in the direction or avoidance of any act or omission. 

Although Public Servants are not the competent authority but have followed due process of Law. Can not be accused of 166 IPC.

The test laid down in this regard is as to whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.

Mere breach of departmental rules will not bring a public servant within the purview of this section, but there must be materials to show that the accused had willfully departed from the direction of law with intent to cause injury to any person.

Act should be opposite to the law in force.

*******

#As per Sec 19 of PC Act, the punishing authority of ASI is the Superintendent of Police and not the State Government.

The intention of the legislature is very clear and intended not to protect all the categories of Govt. employees, but only to protect those public servants, who are removable from their office by the State Government and not otherwise.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108530832/

#It has been held by their lordships of Supreme Court in Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore, reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 269 that if an Inspector or Sub-inspector of Police or constable being removable by the Inspector General or by Superintendent of Police, no sanction is necessary. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1148439/)

#In this case Sub-inspector Not held guilty for 166 but court clarified that there was no need for Sanction u/s 197 as the accused was a Sub-Inspector of Police during the relevant period and no sanction is required from the Government for prosecuting a Sub-Inspector of Police under Section 197 Cr.P.C., since Section 197 Cr.P.C. contemplates sanction to prosecute a public servant only if he is removable from his office by the Government. 

No Sanction required for prosecuting Sub-inspector & Inspector:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1495054/

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159877024/

***

Mukesh Kumar, I.R.S vs G.Srinivas Reddy Another on 10 oct, 2018[4] JUDGEMENT: The Apex Court in this case held that to make out an offence under this provision, it has to be stated that the public servant knowingly disobeyed any particular direction of law which he was bound to obey and further that such disobedience would cause injury to any person to the knowledge of the public servant.

it has to be shown that a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself and thereby intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person.

Hope this will give you a basic idea of IPC 166. 🙏

***

Disclaimer:

These guides are not legal advice, nor a substitute for a lawyer. These articles are provided freely as general guides for legal awareness in the Society. Laws are updated/amended regularly by concerned authorities. Please check for the latest & updated laws with your legal advisor.