Section 223 punishes whoever, knowing that by an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant empowered to promulgate it, they are directed to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in their possession or under their management, disobeys such direction: with simple imprisonment of up to six months, or fine of up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both, where the disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury (or the risk of it) to any person lawfully employed, under clause (a); and with imprisonment of either description of up to one year, or fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both, where the disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health, or safety, or a riot or affray, under clause (b).
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 223 to old IPC Section 188, and independently against the text of Section 188 itself as found in the edition of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 consulted for this book.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 223 | 188 | Substantively changed |
Substantively changed: old IPC Section 188 expressed the same two-tier structure—disobedience to a lawful order, escalated where the disobedience endangers life, health, safety, or causes a riot or affray—as a single continuous sentence rather than as separate lettered clauses. Section 223 restructures this into clauses (a) and (b). Under clause (a), imprisonment has been raised from up to one month to up to six months, and the fine from up to two hundred rupees to up to two thousand five hundred rupees. Under clause (b), imprisonment has been raised from up to six months to up to one year, and the fine from up to one thousand rupees to up to five thousand rupees. The Explanation and Illustration are carried forward unchanged in substance.
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,—
(a) shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or with both;
(b) and where such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration.—An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
A person who knowingly disobeys a lawfully promulgated public servant's direction to abstain from an act, or to take order with property in their possession or management, falls within this clause where the disobedience causes or risks obstruction, annoyance, or injury to a person lawfully employed.
Where the same kind of disobedience instead causes or risks danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes or risks a riot or affray, the heavier punishment under this clause applies. As the statutory Explanation makes clear, intent to cause harm is not required—knowledge of the order and the likelihood of resulting harm are sufficient.
No. As the section's own Explanation states, it is enough that the person knows of the order they are disobeying, and that their disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Clause (a): simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to two thousand five hundred rupees, or both. Clause (b): imprisonment of either description up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Both the imprisonment and fine caps have been substantially raised in both tiers, and the provision has been restructured from a single continuous sentence into separate lettered clauses.