Indian criminal law | Public tranquillity

IPC Section 156: Liability of Agent or Manager for Riot - BNS Section 193(3)

Former Section 156 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with the liability of an agent or manager when a riot was committed for the benefit or on behalf of a person with an interest in land or in the dispute giving rise to the riot. The corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is Section 193(3).

Key point: An agent or manager may be punishable with fine when the statutory circumstances are established and the person fails to use all lawful means within their power to prevent the anticipated unlawful assembly or riot and to suppress and disperse it. Mere employment as an agent is not, by itself, sufficient.

IPC Section 156: original legal rule

Under the former provision, liability arose whenever a riot was committed for the benefit or on behalf of a person who owned or occupied land connected with the riot, claimed an interest in that land or in the subject of the dispute giving rise to the riot, or accepted or derived a benefit from the riot.

The agent or manager of such a person was punishable with fine if, having reason to believe that the riot was likely to occur or that the unlawful assembly which committed it was likely to be held, the agent or manager failed to use all lawful means within their power to prevent the assembly or riot and to suppress and disperse it.

This restates the substance of the original page's Section 156 text while separating the conditions for clearer reading.

Current law: BNS Section 193(3)

Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023) addresses the liability of landowners, beneficiaries, agents and managers in relation to unlawful assemblies and riots. Its subsection (3) substantially carries forward the rule in IPC Section 156: the agent or manager of the relevant person may be fined where the required prior knowledge or reason to believe and omission to use available lawful means are proved.

The BNS generally came into force on 1 July 2024. For alleged conduct before that date, the IPC and applicable repeal-and-savings rules may remain relevant. The applicable law depends on when the alleged omission occurred and the facts of the case.

Meaning of important terms

Agent: A person authorised to act for another in the relevant affairs, such as management or protection of land or property.
Manager: A person entrusted with the management or supervision of the relevant land, property or interests.
Riot: Under BNS Section 191, rioting involves force or violence used by an unlawful assembly or a member of it in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
Unlawful assembly: BNS Section 189 describes an assembly of five or more persons having a common object of a kind specified by law.
All lawful means: Measures that the person can legally and practically take in the circumstances; the provision does not require the use of unlawful force or impossible actions.

Essential ingredients for liability

A riot occurred: The prosecution must establish the relevant riot.
Benefit or connection: The riot was committed for the benefit or on behalf of a person owning or occupying the land, claiming an interest in the land or disputed subject matter, or accepting or deriving a benefit.
Agency or management: The accused was an agent or manager of that person.
Reason to believe: The 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.
Failure to act: The agent or manager failed to use all lawful means within their power to prevent the anticipated riot or assembly and to suppress and disperse it.

The duty is assessed against what the person knew or had reason to believe and what lawful measures were realistically within their power. Liability should not be assumed merely because the riot happened on property under management.

Punishment under IPC 156 and BNS 193(3)

Provision	Persons concerned	Statutory punishment
IPC Section 156 (former law)	Agent or manager of the person benefiting from the riot	Fine
BNS Section 193(3) (current corresponding law)	Agent or manager in the circumstances set out in the provision	Fine

Neither provision specifies a fixed maximum fine in the subsection itself. The court determines any fine subject to the general law governing fines and the facts established. Do not confuse this provision with BNS Section 193(1), which concerns a different duty and expressly specifies a maximum fine.

IPC Sections 154 to 156 and BNS Section 193 compared

Former IPC provision	Corresponding BNS provision	Main subject
IPC 154	BNS 193(1)	Owner, occupier or interested person: notice to police and lawful prevention or suppression duties
IPC 155	BNS 193(2)	Liability of the person for whose benefit a riot is committed
IPC 156	BNS 193(3)	Liability of the agent or manager of such a person

Practical illustrations

Example 1: Failure despite advance warning

A manager has credible information that a group plans to use violence during a land dispute for the benefit of the property owner. If a riot occurs and the manager failed to use available lawful preventive and dispersal measures, Section 193(3) may be engaged, subject to proof of every element.

Example 2: Reasonable lawful steps taken

An agent promptly informs the police, discourages the gathering and uses lawful measures available to prevent violence. Whether the agent complied with the statutory duty depends on the evidence; the mere occurrence of a riot does not establish guilt.

Example 3: No reason to anticipate violence

A manager had no reason to believe that a riot or unlawful assembly was likely and no realistic opportunity to take preventive action. The required statutory elements may not be made out.

Complaint, investigation and proof

Police reports, warnings, messages, land records, agency agreements, witness accounts and evidence of preventive steps may be relevant. Whether an offence is cognizable or bailable, and which court may try it, must be checked against the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and any applicable special provision. No automatic inference about arrest or bail should be made from the fact that the punishment is a fine.

BNS Section 189: Unlawful assembly.
BNS Section 190: Offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object.
BNS Section 191: Rioting.
BNS Section 193: Liability of persons connected with land, riot beneficiaries, agents and managers.

Frequently asked questions

What is IPC Section 156?

It imposed a fine on an agent or manager of a person for whose benefit a riot was committed, where the agent or manager had reason to anticipate the riot or unlawful assembly and failed to use all lawful means available to prevent, suppress and disperse it.

What is the corresponding BNS provision?

Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to former IPC Section 156.

What is the punishment under BNS Section 193(3)?

Fine. The provision does not prescribe imprisonment or a specific maximum amount for this subsection.

Is an agent automatically liable whenever a riot occurs?

No. The statutory conditions, including the relevant connection to the beneficiary, reason to believe the riot or assembly was likely, and failure to take available lawful measures, must be established.

How do IPC Sections 154, 155 and 156 relate to BNS Section 193?

They broadly correspond to BNS Sections 193(1), 193(2) and 193(3), respectively. The exact provision and date of the alleged act must be checked.

Official statutory sources

India Code: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (official PDF) - Sections 189, 191 and 193.
India Code: Central Acts and updated legislative texts - consult the IPC, BNS and BNSS as applicable.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India - official notifications and criminal-law resources.

This article is general legal information, not case-specific advice. Verify the statutory text, commencement, amendments and relevant facts before acting on it.