Section 293 punishes a person who repeats or continues a public nuisance after a public servant with lawful authority has enjoined him not to do so. The punishment is simple imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both. It is the Sanhita's version of IPC Section 291; the imprisonment term is unchanged, but the IPC's uncapped fine now has a ceiling of ₹5,000.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 293 is marked Substantively changed — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a change in the fine:
| BNS 293 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 293 | Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue | S.291 “Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue” | Substantively changed |
The offence is worded identically in both Acts, and both provide simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. The difference is in the fine. IPC Section 291 said “or with fine, or with both” — the fine had no stated upper limit in the text. BNS Section 293 says “or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both”, so the fine now has a stated maximum of ₹5,000.
Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment 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 293 punishes defiance. The underlying wrong is a public nuisance, which Section 270 defines as an act or illegal omission causing common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in the vicinity, or necessarily causing injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to those using a public right. Section 292 already provides a small fine for committing such a nuisance where nothing else punishes it. Section 293 deals with the person who does not stop: someone who has been formally told not to repeat or continue the nuisance and does so anyway. The text reflects that difference: Section 293 provides for simple imprisonment, which Section 292 does not.
The ingredients are: (1) there is a public nuisance within Section 270; (2) the accused repeats or continues it; (3) the accused has been enjoined (in ordinary usage, ordered or directed) not to repeat or continue it; (4) the injunction was issued by a public servant (as defined in Section 2(28) of the Sanhita); and (5) that public servant had lawful authority to issue such injunction. The last two ingredients are essential. An informal request from a neighbour, a private complaint, or a direction from a public servant who has no authority in the matter is not enough. The text also links the offence to the specific nuisance that was the subject of the injunction: the accused must repeat or continue such nuisance. The section itself does not state what form the injunction must take or under which other law it is issued; those are matters found outside this section, and the Sanhita's text of Section 293 does not need them to define the offence.
The punishment is simple imprisonment (no rigorous labour) for up to six months, or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate, and it is not one of the offences that BNSS Section 359 allows to be compounded. Compared with the old law, the only change in the statutory wording is that the fine, which the IPC left without a stated limit, is now capped at ₹5,000. Section 293 should not be confused with Section 292, which punishes the original nuisance with a fine only and does not depend on any prior injunction.
The section says “any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction”. So the person must be a public servant as defined in the Sanhita, and must actually have lawful authority to issue that kind of injunction. An order from someone lacking that authority does not satisfy the section.
No. The section is about a person who repeats or continues a public nuisance after having been enjoined not to. A nuisance committed without any prior injunction falls under Section 292 (if no other section punishes it) or under whichever specific section applies.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. It is not listed in either table of BNSS Section 359, so it cannot be compounded.
Only simple imprisonment, for a term which may extend to six months. The section does not provide for rigorous imprisonment.
The description of the offence and the six-month simple imprisonment limit are the same. The IPC allowed “fine” without a stated ceiling; the BNS sets the maximum fine at ₹5,000.