Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 217: Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
A public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law on how to conduct themselves, intending or knowing it likely to save someone from legal punishment or reduce it, or to save property from forfeiture or a legal charge, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 217
-
State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC]
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.
Matter pertains to the correctness of High Court order rejecting the writ petition of the appellants against the First Appellate Court’s common order allowing I.A. u/Ord.11 r.14 CPC and allowing I.A. seeking permission…
-
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision application and refused to the quash the order of the Trial Court rejecting the appellant’s discharge application in a case for offences under the Prevention of…
-
M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and…
-
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
-
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings…
- Bijender Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
-
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others
Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed…
- Prashant Kumar Nema v. State & Anr
- Om Prakash v. State & Anr
- Sardool Singh Through Sewa Singh v. Shiv Dayal & Anr
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- V. Rajaram v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Cbi/Scb
- Ved Mitier Gill v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others
- Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar v. State of Gujarat
- Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana
- State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Asha Arun Gawali and Anr.
- Union of India Through Major General H.C. Pathak v. Major S.K. Sharma