Section 180 IPC: Refusing to Sign Statement
Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished refusal to sign a statement made by the person when a public servant legally competent to require the signature required that person to sign the statement.
Meaning of Section 180 IPC
The section applied to a refusal to sign a statement that had been made by the person concerned. It did not create a general power in every public servant to demand signatures. The public servant requiring the signature had to be legally competent to require that particular statement to be signed.
Section 180 IPC - statutory provision
Refusing to sign statement.
Whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Essential ingredients of Section 180 IPC
- A statement must have been made by the person concerned.
- A public servant must require that person to sign the statement.
- The public servant must be legally competent to require the signature.
- The person must refuse to sign the statement.
Punishment under Section 180 IPC
| Offence | Maximum imprisonment | Maximum fine |
|---|---|---|
| Refusing to sign a statement when lawfully required by a legally competent public servant | Simple imprisonment up to 3 months | Rs. 500, or both imprisonment and fine |
Scope of the offence
Section 180 focused on refusal to authenticate by signature a statement already made by the person. The statutory phrase "legally competent" is important: the power to insist on a signature had to arise from law applicable to the proceeding or inquiry. The section therefore did not punish a refusal merely because a public official requested a signature.
The provision also needs to be read with the procedural law governing the particular statement. Whether a person was legally required to sign depended on the nature of the proceeding and the statutory power being exercised.
Nature and procedure under pre-BNS law
Under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under Section 180 IPC was non-cognizable and bailable. Where committed in a Court, it was triable by that Court subject to the applicable special procedure; where not committed in a Court, it was triable by any Magistrate.
Section 195(1)(a) CrPC restricted cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. A Court could not take cognizance except on 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, 179 and 181 IPC
Section 178 IPC concerned refusal to take an oath or affirmation when duly required. Section 179 IPC concerned refusal to answer a lawful question despite a legal duty to state the truth. Section 180 IPC concerned refusal to sign one's statement when lawfully required, while Section 181 IPC dealt with making a false statement on oath or affirmation.
Present legal position after 1 July 2024
The corresponding provision is Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For matters governed by the BNS, the current provision should be consulted together with the applicable procedural law. This page remains focused on Section 180 IPC and the legal position before BNS commencement.
The law applicable to an individual 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.