IPC Section 168: Public Servant Unlawfully Engaging in Trade - Current BNS Section 202
Former Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) penalised a public servant who engaged in trade despite being legally prohibited from doing so. The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is Section 202, effective from 1 July 2024.
Former law: IPC Section 168.
Current law: BNS Section 202.
Offence: Engaging in trade while legally bound, as a public servant, not to do so.
Punishment: Simple imprisonment for up to one year, or fine, or both.
IPC Section 168: Former statutory provision
The former Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, titled Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade, provided:
Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
The provision did not impose a blanket criminal prohibition on all outside activities of every government employee. Its essential requirement was a legal restriction on engaging in trade applicable to the public servant concerned.
BNS Section 202: Current provision
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries forward the offence of a public servant unlawfully engaging in trade. The relevant statutory elements and punishment remain substantially the same as under IPC Section 168.
For conduct occurring on or after 1 July 2024, the current BNS provision should be examined. For older conduct, the IPC and applicable repeal-and-savings rules may remain relevant. BNS Section 168 is a different provision and should not be confused with former IPC Section 168.
Essential ingredients of the offence
- Status as a public servant: The accused must qualify as a public servant under the applicable statutory definition.
- Legal prohibition: The person must be legally bound, in the capacity of a public servant, not to engage in trade.
- Engagement in trade: The person must actually engage in trade contrary to that restriction. The facts, nature of the activity and applicable legal rules are important.
Whether an activity amounts to trade is a fact-sensitive question. Merely owning passive investments, receiving permitted income, or undertaking a non-commercial activity should not automatically be treated as criminal trading without examining the law and circumstances.
Applicable service or conduct rules may impose additional administrative restrictions. A departmental disciplinary breach is not necessarily identical to proof of all elements of a criminal offence under BNS Section 202.
Punishment under IPC Section 168 and BNS Section 202
| Issue | Legal position |
|---|---|
| Former provision | IPC Section 168 |
| Current provision | BNS Section 202 |
| Maximum imprisonment | Simple imprisonment up to one year |
| Alternative punishment | Fine |
| Combined punishment | Imprisonment and fine |
| Key legal condition | The public servant must be legally bound not to engage in trade |
Simple imprisonment is imprisonment without the rigorous-labour element associated with rigorous imprisonment. The sentencing court determines the appropriate punishment within the statutory limits.
For the procedural classification, bail and investigation rules in a particular case, consult the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the facts of the alleged offence.
Practical illustrations
Example 1: Running a prohibited commercial business
A public servant who is legally prohibited from engaging in trade nevertheless personally operates a commercial trading business. If the statutory ingredients are proved, BNS Section 202 may apply.
Example 2: Permitted investment
A public servant holds an investment that is permitted by the applicable law and conduct rules, without carrying on trade. Mere investment does not by itself establish the offence.
Example 3: Business activity requiring permission
A government employee participates in a business venture. Whether the conduct is prohibited depends on the legal restriction, any lawful permission, the employee's role and whether the activity constitutes trade. The specific service rules must be checked.
Frequently asked questions
What does IPC Section 168 prohibit?
It prohibits a public servant who is legally bound not to engage in trade from engaging in trade in violation of that legal restriction.
What is the corresponding BNS provision?
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to former IPC Section 168.
What is the punishment under BNS Section 202?
Simple imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine, or both.
Does every side business by a government employee constitute this offence?
Not automatically. The prosecution must establish that the person was a public servant, was legally bound not to engage in trade, and nevertheless engaged in trade. Applicable service and conduct rules should be examined.
Is permission from the employer relevant?
Permission and the precise wording of applicable statutory restrictions or service rules may be relevant to whether the public servant was legally bound not to trade and whether a violation occurred.
Does this provision apply to conduct before 1 July 2024?
IPC Section 168 may remain relevant to conduct before commencement of the BNS on 1 July 2024, subject to applicable repeal, savings and transition provisions.
Official legal sources
- India Code - official repository of central legislation (search the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 202, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
- National Crime Records Bureau - IPC to BNS correspondence table.
- National Crime Records Bureau - BNS chapters.
- Gazette of India - Acts and commencement notifications.
Updated October 2026. This article is general legal information. Check the applicable statute, service rules, official notifications and judicial decisions before relying on it for an individual case.