Section 156 IPC: Liability of Agent of Owner or Occupier for Whose Benefit Riot Is Committed

Section 156 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with the liability of an agent or manager of an owner, occupier or other interested person for whose benefit or on whose behalf a riot was committed, where the agent or manager had reason to believe that the riot or relevant unlawful assembly was likely and failed to use lawful means within his power to prevent, suppress and disperse it.

Pre-BNS legal position: This article explains Section 156 IPC as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. It is intended for understanding the IPC provision and matters governed by the earlier law.

Text of Section 156 IPC

156. Liability of agent of owner or occupier for whose benefit riot is committed. Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place, or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit therefrom, the agent or manager of such person shall be punishable with fine, if such agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed, or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or assembly from taking place and for suppressing and dispersing the same.

Meaning and Scope of Section 156 IPC

Section 156 formed part of Chapter VIII of the IPC concerning offences against public tranquillity. Its focus was the agent or manager of a person connected with the land, dispute or benefit associated with a riot. The section did not impose liability merely because a person happened to be an agent or manager. The statutory conditions relating to the riot, the beneficiary or interested person, prior reason to believe, and failure to use lawful preventive and suppressive means had to be satisfied.

The provision therefore complemented Section 155 IPC, which dealt with the liability of the person for whose benefit or on whose behalf the riot was committed.

Essential Ingredients of Section 156 IPC

In substance, the following statutory elements were relevant:

A riot was committed.
The riot was committed for the benefit of, or on behalf of, a person falling within the categories described in Section 156.
That person was an owner or occupier of the relevant land, claimed an interest in the land or in the dispute that gave rise to the riot, or accepted or derived a benefit from the riot.
The accused was the agent or manager of that person.
The agent or manager had reason to believe that the riot was likely to be committed or that the unlawful assembly by which the riot was committed was likely to be held.
The agent or manager failed to use all lawful means within his power to prevent the riot or assembly and to suppress and disperse it.

Important Legal Expressions

Riot

Under the IPC framework, rioting was dealt with by Section 146 IPC. In substance, where force or violence was used by an unlawful assembly, or by a member of it, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every member of the assembly was guilty of rioting.

Unlawful assembly

The expression "unlawful assembly" was governed by Section 141 IPC. Section 156 expressly contemplated advance reason to believe that the unlawful assembly by which the riot was committed was likely to be held.

Reason to believe

Section 26 IPC provided that a person was said to have "reason to believe" a thing if there was sufficient cause to believe that thing, but not otherwise. Section 156 therefore required more than the mere fact that a riot ultimately occurred; the statutory test concerned sufficient cause to believe beforehand that the riot or relevant unlawful assembly was likely.

All lawful means in his power

The duty under Section 156 was confined to lawful means within the power of the agent or manager. The provision connected liability with failure to use such available lawful measures to prevent the riot or assembly from taking place and to suppress and disperse it.

Punishment and Classification Before BNS

Punishment	Fine
Cognizability	Non-cognizable
Bail	Bailable
Court	Triable by any Magistrate
Compounding	Non-compoundable

Relationship with Sections 154 and 155 IPC

Section 154 IPC addressed specified responsibility connected with an owner, occupier or person interested in land on which an unlawful assembly was held or a riot occurred. Section 155 IPC dealt with the person for whose benefit or on whose behalf the riot was committed. Section 156 specifically extended the statutory scheme to the agent or manager of such a person when its own conditions were fulfilled.

Practical Legal Effect

The provision imposed fine-based liability on an agent or manager because of a failure to act in the circumstances defined by the section. Accordingly, proof of the person's status as agent or manager alone was insufficient. The connection of the riot with the relevant owner, occupier or interested person, the required reason to believe, and the failure to use lawful means within the agent's or manager's power were material components of the offence.

Position After 1 July 2024

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, subject to the applicable repeal and savings provisions. The subject matter formerly addressed by Section 156 IPC is now addressed within Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For conduct governed by the earlier IPC, the historical provision and applicable savings remain relevant; for conduct governed by the new law, the BNS should be consulted.

Note: This page provides an informational explanation of the pre-BNS provision. Application of criminal law depends on the facts, date of the alleged conduct and applicable repeal, savings and procedural provisions.