Section 179 IPC: Refusing to Answer Public Servant Authorised to Question

Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished a person who, despite being legally bound to state the truth on a subject to a public servant, refused to answer a question concerning that subject when the public servant asked it in exercise of lawful powers.

Pre-BNS legal position: This article explains Section 179 IPC as applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The corresponding provision under the BNS is Section 214.

On this page Meaning Provision Ingredients Punishment Scope Procedure Related sections Present law

Meaning of Section 179 IPC

Section 179 did not punish every refusal to answer every question asked by a public servant. The provision required a pre-existing legal obligation to state the truth on the particular subject. In addition, the question had to concern that subject and had to be demanded by the public servant while exercising powers conferred by law.

Key requirement: Mere official status of the person asking the question was not enough. Section 179 required both a legal duty on the person questioned to state the truth and lawful authority in the public servant to demand the answer.

Section 179 IPC - statutory provision

Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question.

Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Essential ingredients of Section 179 IPC

The person must be legally bound to state the truth on a particular subject.
The legal obligation must be owed in relation to a public servant.
The public servant must demand an answer to a question touching that subject.
The public servant must ask the question in exercise of legal powers.
The person must refuse to answer the question.

Punishment under Section 179 IPC

Offence	Maximum imprisonment	Maximum fine
Refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question where the person is legally bound to state the truth	Simple imprisonment up to 6 months	Rs. 1,000, or both imprisonment and fine

When could Section 179 IPC apply?

The provision depended on the source and scope of the legal duty. It was therefore necessary to identify the law under which the person was bound to state the truth and the authority under which the public servant demanded the answer. A refusal falling outside that legal duty, or a question outside the public servant's lawful powers, would not satisfy the statutory wording merely because the question was asked by a public official.

The section concerned refusal to answer. It should not be confused with giving an answer that is false, refusing to take an oath or affirmation, or refusing to sign a statement; those matters were addressed by other provisions.

Nature and procedure under pre-BNS law

Under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under Section 179 IPC was non-cognizable and bailable. Where the offence was committed in a Court, it was triable by that Court subject to the special procedural provisions governing offences affecting the administration of justice; where it was not committed in a Court, it was triable by any Magistrate.

Section 195(1)(a) CrPC imposed an additional cognizance requirement for offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. A Court could not take cognizance except upon a written complaint of the public servant concerned or of another public servant to whom that public servant was administratively subordinate.

Difference from Sections 178, 180 and 181 IPC

Section 178 IPC dealt with refusal to bind oneself by oath or affirmation when duly required by a legally competent public servant. Section 179 IPC dealt with refusal to answer a lawful question despite a legal duty to state the truth. Section 180 IPC dealt with refusal to sign a statement when legally required to do so, while Section 181 IPC addressed a false statement made on oath or affirmation.

Present legal position after 1 July 2024

The corresponding provision is Section 214 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The core wording is substantially retained. The maximum sentence remains simple imprisonment for six months, while the maximum fine has increased from Rs. 1,000 under Section 179 IPC to Rs. 5,000 under Section 214 BNS.

This article primarily explains the IPC provision applicable before commencement of the BNS. The law applicable to a particular matter depends on the date of the alleged conduct and the relevant saving and transition provisions.

This article provides general legal information and does not substitute for advice based on the facts and procedural record of a particular case.