Indian criminal law | Rioting and public tranquillity

IPC Section 155: Liability of Person for Whose Benefit a Riot Is Committed

Section 155 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addressed the liability of a person for whose benefit or on whose behalf a riot was committed, if the person or their agent or manager had reason to anticipate the riot and failed to use available lawful measures to prevent or suppress it. The corresponding current provision is Section 193(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

What did IPC Section 155 provide?

The original provision applied whenever a riot was committed for the benefit of, or on behalf of, a person who owned or occupied land in connection with which the riot occurred; claimed an interest in that land or in the dispute that gave rise to the riot; or accepted or derived a benefit from the riot.

That person could be punished with a fine if the person, or their agent or manager, had reason to believe that a riot was likely, or that the unlawful assembly responsible for it was likely to be held, but failed to use all lawful means within their respective power to prevent the assembly or riot and to suppress and disperse it.

Historical scope: IPC Section 155 was not a general rule making every landowner responsible for a riot. Its application depended on the specific statutory relationship to the land, dispute or benefit, and on the required knowledge and omission.

Current law: BNS Section 193(2)

With the commencement of the BNS on 1 July 2024, the corresponding rule appears in Section 193(2), within the consolidated section dealing with the liability of owners, occupiers, beneficiaries and their agents or managers in relation to unlawful assemblies and riots.

Section 193(2) provides for a fine where a riot is committed for the benefit of or on behalf of a person with the specified connection to the land, underlying dispute or benefit, and that person or their agent or manager, having reason to believe the riot or unlawful assembly was likely, fails to employ the lawful means in their power to prevent it or suppress and disperse it.

For alleged conduct before 1 July 2024, the former IPC may remain relevant under the repeal and savings provisions and the applicable law governing the date of the offence. The date of the alleged conduct should therefore be established before choosing the statutory provision.

Meaning of important legal expressions

• Riot: Under BNS Section 191(1), rioting involves force or violence used by an unlawful assembly, or any member of it, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
• Unlawful assembly: BNS Section 189(1) defines an assembly of five or more persons whose common object falls within the categories specified in that provision.
• Owner or occupier: A person owning or occupying land connected with the riot; the statute also refers to persons claiming an interest in that land or the dispute.
• Benefit: A benefit accepted or derived from the riot, assessed on the evidence and statutory wording.
• Reason to believe: More than a mere unsupported suspicion; the facts must support the legally required basis for anticipating the unlawful assembly or riot.
• All lawful means: Measures reasonably within the person's actual power that are lawful, such as promptly seeking police intervention, warning against violence or directing persons under their control not to participate. The law does not require unlawful or physically impossible actions.

Essential ingredients of liability

1. A riot was committed. The offence is tied to a riot, not merely a peaceful gathering.
2. Statutory connection: The riot was for the benefit of or on behalf of a person with the prescribed interest in land or the relevant dispute, or who accepted or derived a benefit from it.
3. Reason to believe: The person or their agent or manager had reason to believe that the riot or relevant unlawful assembly was likely.
4. Failure to act: The relevant person failed to use all lawful means within their power to prevent the assembly or riot, or to suppress and disperse it.
5. Evidence: Each required fact must be established by admissible evidence; mere proximity, ownership or an allegation of benefit is not a substitute for proof.

Punishment and distinction from related provisions

The amount of a fine where the provision states no specific maximum is subject to the general sentencing law and judicial discretion. A fine under this provision should not be confused with imprisonment or other penalties for separate offences that might be proved against a participant in the riot.

Illustrative situations

Example 1: Beneficiary fails to prevent an anticipated riot

A landholder expects supporters to assemble violently to gain an advantage in a boundary dispute. The landholder has reason to believe a riot is likely but takes no lawful steps within their power to prevent it. If the assembly riots for the landholder's benefit and the other elements are proved, Section 193(2) may apply.

Example 2: Landowner has no reason to anticipate violence

A riot unexpectedly breaks out on land belonging to someone who had no reason to believe it would occur and no established benefit or other statutory connection. Ownership alone does not prove liability under Section 193(2).

Example 3: Reasonable preventive steps taken

A person learns of a threatened violent gathering, promptly alerts police and uses all other lawful measures within their actual power to prevent it. Whether Section 193(2) is made out will depend on the evidence concerning the precise statutory requirements; the mere fact that a riot later occurred is not conclusive.

Complaints, evidence and procedure

Evidence may include communications showing prior knowledge, land or dispute records, witness statements, police complaints, instructions given to an agent or manager, and records of preventive action. The classification and mode of prosecution should be checked against the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the precise offence alleged. Different offences arising from the same incident may have different arrest, bail and trial rules.

Where violence is anticipated, promptly notifying the nearest police station and documenting lawful preventive measures can be important. No private person is authorised by this provision to use unlawful force.

Frequently asked questions

What is IPC Section 155?

IPC Section 155 imposed a fine on a person for whose benefit or on whose behalf a riot occurred, where the statutory connection, prior reason to believe, and failure to take lawful preventive or suppressive measures were established.

Which BNS provision corresponds to IPC Section 155?

Section 193(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding provision.

What punishment applies under BNS Section 193(2)?

The punishment is a fine. The subsection does not specify a fixed maximum amount.

Is a landowner automatically liable whenever a riot occurs?

No. Ownership or benefit alone is not sufficient; the prosecution must establish the statutory conditions, including reason to believe and failure to use lawful means within the person's power.

What is the difference between BNS Sections 193(1), (2) and (3)?

Subsection (1) addresses certain duties of a landowner or occupier when an unlawful assembly or riot occurs; subsection (2) concerns the person for whose benefit a riot is committed; subsection (3) concerns an agent or manager of that person.

Official statutory sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - official India Code PDF (particularly Sections 189, 191 and 193).
• India Code - official legislative database (IPC, BNS and BNSS texts and amendments).
• Ministry of Home Affairs (criminal law commencement notifications and official resources).

Updated October 2026. This is general legal information, not a substitute for checking the operative statute, amendments, relevant procedural schedule and facts of a particular case.