Section 239 punishes a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give information about it which he is legally bound to give. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to six months, or fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both. Section 2(15) says when a person is “legally bound to do” a thing.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and compared word by word with the bare text of both Acts. Section 239 is marked Substantively changed — it descends from a single section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the same ingredients, but the text now states a ceiling for the fine:
| BNS 239 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 239 | Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform | S.202 “Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform” | Substantively changed |
IPC Section 202 read: “shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” BNS Section 239 reads: “shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.” A word-by-word comparison of the two texts (run by program, and checked against the printed page of each Act) finds this one difference, the added words “which may extend to five thousand rupees” after “fine”, and no other. The ingredients (knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed; intentionally omits; any information respecting that offence; legally bound to give), the imprisonment (either description, up to six months) and the punctuation are the same in both. The statutory delta is therefore that the fine now has a stated ceiling of five thousand rupees, where the IPC text stated none.
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 239 punishes a failure to speak. The person does not give information about an offence that he knows or has reason to believe has been committed, and the information is information that he is legally bound to give. No false information is given and no evidence is made to disappear; the wrong lies in the omission. That distinguishes the section from Section 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) and Section 240 (Giving false information respecting an offence committed).
The section has four ingredients, each taken from its words. (1) The person knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed; Section 2(29) says a person has “reason to believe” a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. (2) The person omits to give information respecting that offence; Section 2(25) provides that “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission. (3) The omission is intentional: the section’s words are “intentionally omits”, and the Sanhita does not define “intentionally” in Section 2. (4) The information is information “which he is legally bound to give”.
Section 2(15) defines the last of these. The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action, and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit. Section 239 does not itself create the duty to give information, does not name the persons who are bound, and does not name the person to whom the information is to be given; the duty has to come from some other provision or law. As one example of a provision worded as a duty to give information, BNSS Section 33(1) provides that every person aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under the sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 that it lists (which include Sections 103 to 105) “shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer of such commission or intention”. BNSS Section 34(1) provides that every officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village and every person residing in a village shall forthwith communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station certain information described in that section. Whether a particular provision makes a person “legally bound” in the sense of Section 2(15) is a question about that provision and the facts, and this page does not list every provision that might do so.
The word “offence” has a defined reach in this section. Section 2(24)(b) names Section 239 among the sections in which the word “offence” has the meaning given in Section 2(24)(a), that is, a thing punishable under the Sanhita or under any special law or local law, when the act punishable under the special law or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or more, whether with or without fine. The Explanation printed under Section 240 adds that in Sections 238 and 239 and in Section 240 the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under the sections that Explanation lists; the list appears with the text of Section 240.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple, Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. The three are alternatives joined by “or”, so on the words of the section a fine alone is open. IPC Section 202 stated no ceiling for the fine; the BNS states one, as set out in the comparison above.
Section 211 (Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it) is worded differently. It speaks of a person legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject “to any public servant, as such”, who intentionally omits to do so “in the manner and at the time required by law”; its clause (b) covers notice or information that “respects the commission of an offence”, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both. Section 239 names no recipient. The same conduct may come within the words of both sections; the text does not say which is to be applied, and this page does not state a rule on it.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, Section 239 is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. BNSS Section 2(1)(o) defines a non-cognizable offence as one for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, and BNSS Section 174(2) provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Because the offence is bailable, BNSS Section 478(1) applies: a person accused of a bailable offence who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”. The section appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
Section 2(15) says a person is “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit, and that “illegal” applies to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action. Section 239 does not itself say who is bound or to whom the information is due, so the duty has to be found in another provision or law. BNSS Section 33(1) is an example of a provision worded as a duty to give information about certain offences.
Not on that fact alone. The words of the section require that the person knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give information respecting it, and is legally bound to give that information. Where no legal duty to give the information exists, the last of those ingredients is missing on the words of the section. Whether a duty exists depends on the provision said to create it and on the facts.
The BNSS First Schedule lists it as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. BNSS Section 2(1)(o) says a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and BNSS Section 174(2) says no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Being bailable, it is governed by BNSS Section 478(1): a person accused of it who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”.
Section 211 speaks of a person legally bound to give notice or furnish information “to any public servant, as such”, and prescribes punishment in three tiers, (a), (b) and (c), with different limits. Section 239 speaks of “any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give”, names no recipient, and prescribes imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both. The same conduct may come within the words of both, and this page does not state a rule about which applies.
One thing in the words: the fine now has a stated ceiling of five thousand rupees (“fine which may extend to five thousand rupees”). IPC Section 202 said only “or with fine”. The ingredients, the imprisonment of up to six months and the punctuation are otherwise the same.