Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 228: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
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 228
-
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered…
-
Prem Prakash v. Union of India Through
When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023)…
-
M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr v. M/S Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr.
Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act 1963, applies to proceedings under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 and; if the Limitation Act does not…
-
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/S Ganpati
Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that enhancement of value of the imported goods and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs on the noticee-respondents could not be sustained and consequently…
- The State of Gujarat Etc. v. Choodamani
- Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Anr.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus & Ors.
- M/S Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- M/S. Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
- Union of India & Ors. v. P. S. Gill
- John D’ Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
- General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others v. Sri Giridhari Sahu and Others
- Fera v. M/S. Premier Limited (Formerly Premier Automobiles Ltd.) & Ors.
- R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
- State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association & Ors.
- Gujarat Urja Viikas Nigam Limited v. Solar Semiconductor Power Company (India) Private Limited and Others
- Amit Vashistha v. Suresh and Another
- Ajitslnh Arjunslnh Gohll v. Bar Council of Gujarat and Anr.
- Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- A.P. Power Coordination Committee & Ors. v. Mis. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Ors.
- Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India & Ors.
- Vijay Mallya v. Enforcement Directorate, Min. of Finance