Offences Relating to Statements on Oath Section 178.

Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by

public servant to make it. -
-Whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or
affirmation to state the truth, when required so to bind
himself by a public servant legally competent to require
that he shall so bind himself, 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 179. Refusing to answer public servant

authorized to question. -- Whoever, being legally bound
to state the truth on any subject to any public servant,
refuses to answer any question demanded of him
touching that subject by such public servant in the
exercise of the legal powers of such public servant,
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.

Scope of Section 180

This section was enacted at a time when all witnesses
were required to sign the statements recorded by the
police officer.
However, under s 162 of the present CrPC, witnesses
are not required to sign the statements made by them.

However, where a complaint is made in writing about

an offence and which is received under s 154, CrPC,
then the complaint should bear the signature of the first
informant or the complainant.
Similarly, statements or confessions given by persons or
accused under s 164, CrPC, to judicial magistrates
(popularly called judicial confessions), are required to
be signed by the persons making it on all the pages
bearing their statements or confessions.
Thus, in the absence of any statutory obligation an
accused, who refuses to sign a statement, commits no
offence under the section.

Section 181:
Section 181 punishes making a false statement on oath
or affirmation to a public servant.
To rope an accused in s 181, the prosecution needs to
prove that the accused:
(i) took the oath or made the affirmation;
(ii) was legally bound to do so and to state the
truth to a public servant; and
 (iii) made a statement which was false or he knew
or had reasons to believe that the statement
was false or he did not believe that the
statement was true.
However, s 181 is inapplicable when the public servant
administers the oath in a case wholly beyond his
jurisdiction.
Comparison between Sections 181 and 191,

Indian Penal Code 1860 It is interesting to note that

provisions of s 181 are almost identical to that of s 191
of the Code, which is made punishable under s 193,
IPC.

However, there is one difference between the two.

When a false statement is made to a public servant, the
offender is punishable under s 181 with imprisonment
not exceeding three years, but when the false statement
amounts to false evidence (as defined under s 191), he
is punishable (under s 193 of the IPC) with
imprisonment for a term up to seven years.
Section 193, thus, prescribes punishment that is much
more stringent and is meant to cover a more serious
crime.
 However, one can observe that s 193 can be
considered to have application in instances when false
statements have been made in judicial proceedings.
Actually, a view has taken that s 181 is applicable to
perjury committed in proceedings other than judicial
proceedings.

Section 182:
This section relates to giving information, which the
informer knows or believes to be false, to a public
servant with intent to make him to use his lawful power
to cause injury or annoyance to another person.
Its object, thus, is to ensure that a public servant
should not be given false or misleading information and
thereby to make him to do what he ought not to do or to
omit what he ought to do.

The essential ingredients of the offence can be

described as follows:
(1) giving of false information;
(2) to a public servant;
(3) which information is known by the informant to be
false;
(4) given with the intention to influence the public
servant to act otherwise than he would have acted;
(5) which may have the effect of causing injury or
annoyance to any person.
In order to convict an accused under s 182, it is
necessary for a court to ensure that all these
ingredients constituting the offence are proved.

Daulat Ram v State of Punjab 1962 SC

the Supreme Court held that the offence is complete the
moment a person moves the public servant for action.
However, it is not in all cases of false or incorrect
statement that prosecution needs to be launched.
A prosecution needs to be initiated only in cases of
larger interest of justice.
The question came up before SC that when will be
offence considered to be completed under section 182?
Is it necessary that annoyance injury should be there or
moment the public servant the offence is complete?
This thing was clarified by SC that the moment when
the person moves the public servant the off offence of
sec 182 is completed.
It is immaterial that what actual injury has been caused
or not caused.
A comparison, in brief, between s 182 and s 211 of the
IPC, dealing respectively with giving false information
and instituting false charges, deserves our attention.
Section 182, as mentioned earlier, deals with the case of
false information given to a public servant with the
intent to cause injury to another.
While s 211 deals with the offence of making a false
charge of an offence with the intent to cause injury.

Section 211 provides that it shall be an offence, if a

person, with intent to cause injury to any person, either
institutes any criminal proceeding against him or falsely
charges him with having committed an offence,
knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such
proceeding or charge.
There is a basic difference between the offences created
under these two sections.
The offence under s 182 is complete when a person has
moved a public servant for action.

While the offence under s 211 is complete, the moment

a person puts or attempts to put a criminal court in
motion against another.4
False information (under s 182), unlike false allegation
(under s 211), may not necessarily lead to a particular
allegation or charge against a specified and definite
person.
The offence created under s 211 is a more serious
offence than that one punishable under s 182.
The offences created under these two sections being
distinct, persons charged under s 182 cannot be charged
under s 211 in the alternative.
FALSE CHARGE OF AN OFFENCE 211
This section makes falsely charging or accusing a
person of an offence punishable.
This section is akin to malicious prosecution.
This provision deals with two distinct offences:
(1) actually, instituting or causing to be instituted false
criminal proceeding against a person, and
(2) leveling a false charge against a person.
The former assumes the latter, but the latter offence
may be committed even if no criminal proceedings
follow.
To constitute an offence under this section, it must be
established that the accused:
(i) instituted or caused to be instituted a criminal
proceeding against a person;
(ii) falsely charged a person with having
committed an offence;
 (iii) did so with intent to cause injury to such
person, and
(iv) did so knowing that there was no just or lawful
ground for such proceeding or charge.

The punishment provided for in the section is linked to

the nature of the false charge and the consequential
proceedings.
The mere making of a false charge is made punishable
by simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to
two years, with fine or with both.
But if criminal proceedings are actually instituted on the
basis 364 of the false charge of an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for
seven or more years, the punishment extends to simple
or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven years
and fine.
The enhanced punishment can be imposed on the
prosecutrix only when:
(i) proceedings on the false charge are instituted,
and
(ii) the false charge relates to an offence
punishable with death, life imprisonment, or
imprisonment for seven years or upwards.
Section 183:
Scope of Section 183 The section makes punishable the
offering of resistance to the seizure of property by the
lawful authority of a public servant as it forms an overt
act of defiance to his authority.
As regards to what constitutes resistance, it has been
held that it refers to obstruction and implies something
more than mere verbal opposition to the seizure, but
involves the threat or the imminent threat of use of
force against the seizure.
The essential ingredients to prove the offence are as
follows:
(1) The accused must have offered resistance to the
taking of any property;
(2) The property was being seized under the authority
of a public servant;
(3) Such authority must be shown to be lawful;
(4) At the time when the accused resisted the seizure, he
must be shown to have known or had reason to believe
that the public servant had the authority to the taking of
the property.

Thus, the public servant seeking to take the property

under cover of a warrant must have the warrant with
him at that time, or else the effecting of the taking of
the property will not be lawful.
Similarly, a warrant for attachment of property which is
not signed by the judge or does not bear the seal of the
court concerned, is not a legal warrant.
Resistance or obstruction of such unlawful warrants is
not an offence.
An objection to the police seizing property does amount
to 'resistance' under the section.

Section 184. Obstructing sale of property offered for

sale by authority of public servant.--Whoever
intentionally obstructs any sale of property offered for
sale by the lawful authority of any public servant, as
such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one month,
or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees,
or with both.

Section 185. Illegal purchase or bid for property offered

for sale by authority of public servant.--Whoever, at any
sale of property held by the lawful authority of a public
servant, as such, purchases or bids for any property on
account of any person, whether himself or any other,
whom he knows to be under a legal incapacity to
purchase that property at that sale, or bids for such
property not intending to perform the obligations under
which he lays himself by such bidding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one month, or with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
Scope of Section 186
The section makes a general provision for the
obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of their
public functions.
In the case of judicial officers, any obstruction will
amount to a contempt of court and is as such summarily
punishable under s 345, CrPC, and the offences may be
any of the offences under ss 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228
of the IPC.

What is to be noted is that the obstruction must be

caused during the discharge of public functions and not
in other times.

The term 'voluntarily' in the section indicates that the

offence must be of some overt act of obstruction as
distinguished from mere passive conduct.
The word 'obstruction' denotes some overt act in the
nature of violence or show of violence.
To prove obstruction, it is not necessary that there
should be actual criminal force. It is sufficient if there is
show of force or threat or any act preventing the
execution of any act by a public servant.
 A mere verbal objection to discharge of public function
by a public servant, therefore, does not amount to
obstruction of the public servant and the person cannot
be held guilty under the section.

Similarly, where the accused had made aggressive or

menacing act ions while uttering threats such as to give
rise to a real threat of use of force, preventing the public
servant from discharging his public functions, then the
offence is held to have been made out.
Offences Relating to Disobeying or Non-enforcing
Order of Public Servant

Section 187. Omission to assist public servant when

bound by law to give assistance.—

Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish

assistance to any public servant in the execution of his
public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with fine which
may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if
such assistance be demanded to him by a public servant
legally competent to make such demand for the
purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a
Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an
offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of
apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an
offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 187 provides for the punishment for intentional
omission on part of a person, who is bound by law, to
render assistance to a public servant in:
(i) the execution of his public duty, and
(ii) executing any process lawfully issued by a court of
justice,
(iii) preventing the commission of an offence, and
(iv) suppressing a riot or affray, or apprehending a
person who has charged with or guilty of an offence or
who has escaped from custody.