Section 257 punishes a public servant who, corruptly or maliciously, makes or pronounces a report, order, verdict or decision at any stage of a judicial proceeding, knowing it to be contrary to law. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to seven years, or fine, or both. It corresponds to IPC Section 219, and the words of the two sections are the same.
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 257 is marked Exact correspondence — it maps directly onto one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with no change in wording or punishment:
| BNS 257 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 257 | Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law | S.219 “Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law” | Exact |
A systematic word-by-word comparison of BNS Section 257 with IPC Section 219 found no difference in the operative words. Both sections name the same person (a public servant), the same two alternative qualities of the act (corruptly or maliciously), the same acts (makes or pronounces, in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision), the same knowledge requirement (which he knows to be contrary to law), and the same punishment (imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or fine, or both). Apart from the section number, the only difference between the two printed texts is one of layout: the IPC prints the section’s heading in-line as the opening words of the section, whereas the BNS prints it in the margin, and the heading reads the same in both Acts.
Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 257 has one operative rule. It applies to a public servant who, corruptly or maliciously, makes or pronounces a report, order, verdict or decision in any stage of a judicial proceeding, when he knows that report, order, verdict or decision to be contrary to law. Each element has to be read from the words of the section. First, the person must be “a public servant”. Section 2(28) of the Sanhita lists the descriptions of persons who are public servants; among them, clause (b) speaks of every Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions, and clause (c) speaks of every officer of a Court whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, among other listed duties. Whether a particular person is a public servant is decided by that definition, and this page does not go through every clause of it.
Second, the public servant must “make or pronounce” something, and the section names four things: a report, an order, a verdict, or a decision. The act must occur “in any stage of a judicial proceeding”. The Sanhita does not define “judicial proceeding” in Section 2. Section 229 (Punishment for false evidence) carries Explanations stating that a trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding, and that an investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court, or directed by a Court according to law and conducted under its authority, is a stage of a judicial proceeding though it may not take place before a Court. Those Explanations are printed under Section 229; Section 257 does not refer to them, and they are mentioned here only for comparison, without saying whether they carry over to Section 257.
Third, the report, order, verdict or decision must be one “which he knows to be contrary to law”. The section says “knows”, and the Sanhita does not define that word in Section 2 (Section 2(29) defines “reason to believe”, which is a different phrase and is not the one used here). It does not define “contrary to law” either (Section 2(15) defines “illegal”, again a different word). On the words of the section, what is asked about is the public servant’s own knowledge when he makes or pronounces the report, order, verdict or decision; the section’s words do not mention a decision that is merely mistaken.
Fourth, the act must be done “corruptly or maliciously”. The two words are joined by “or”, so on the face of the text they are alternatives. The Sanhita does not define either word in Section 2; in ordinary usage, “corruptly” points to an improper motive, such as acting for a reward, and “maliciously” points to ill will, and this page does not go beyond those ordinary meanings.
The section does not require any particular result, such as a person being saved from punishment or a loss being caused; on its words it is complete when the public servant, acting corruptly or maliciously, makes or pronounces the report, order, verdict or decision knowing it to be contrary to law. It should not be confused with Section 255, which concerns a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of the law as to how he is to conduct himself, intending to save a person from legal punishment or a property from forfeiture, or with Section 256, which concerns a public servant charged with preparing a record or writing who frames it in a manner he knows to be incorrect, with the intent described there. Section 257 is about the report, order, verdict or decision made or pronounced in a judicial proceeding, and it mentions neither of those intentions.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or fine, or both. Under Section 4(c), “imprisonment of either description” means rigorous imprisonment (with hard labour) or simple imprisonment. The section states no sum for the fine, so Section 8(1) applies: where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. The words “or with fine, or with both” mean that the sentence may be imprisonment alone, fine alone, or both.
The BNSS First Schedule lists Section 257 as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Under BNSS Section 2(1)(o), a non-cognizable offence is one for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, and under BNSS Section 174(2) 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 arrested or detained without warrant, or who appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared to give bail, “shall be released on bail”. The offence appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.
Not on its words alone. The section speaks of a public servant who makes or pronounces a report, order, verdict or decision “corruptly or maliciously”, and which he “knows to be contrary to law”. A decision that is simply mistaken does not, without those elements, fit the words of the section. Whether the elements are present in a given case is a question of fact.
Section 2(28) of the Sanhita lists the descriptions of persons who are public servants. Clause (b) speaks of every Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions, and clause (c) speaks of certain officers of a Court. The list has other clauses as well, so the definition itself should be read for any particular person.
Under the BNSS First Schedule it is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Non-cognizable means, under BNSS Section 2(1)(o), that a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, 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 it or commit it for trial. Bail is governed by BNSS Section 478 for a bailable offence (the person “shall be released on bail” if prepared to give bail). The offence is not listed in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple, Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to seven years, or fine, or both. The section states no amount for the fine, so Section 8(1) applies: the amount is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
A word-by-word comparison found no difference in the operative words: the ingredients and the punishment are the same. Apart from the section number, the only difference in the printed texts is that the IPC prints the heading in-line as the opening words of the section, while the BNS prints it in the margin.