📘 Section 135 – Commitment for Trial or Confinement by a Person Having Authority Who Knows That He is Acting Contrary to Law

on

📘 Section 135 – Commitment for Trial or Confinement by a Person Having Authority Who Knows That He is Acting Contrary to Law

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Category: Criminal Law
Language: English
Word Count: ~3000
Published by: Legal India 999

🧭 Introduction

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done—this age-old maxim reflects the heart of due process in criminal law. Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023) ensures that this principle is not violated by those in positions of authority, such as magistrates, judges, or senior police officials, who may otherwise abuse their legal powers.

This section criminalizes the misuse of legal authority where a person commits an individual for trial or detains them while knowingly violating legal procedures or protections. The provision is key to maintaining the rule of law, especially where liberty is concerned.

🔍 Bare Text of Section 135

"Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, knowingly commits any person for trial or confinement, in the exercise of that authority, acting contrary to law, shall be punished..."

🎯 Purpose of the Law

Section 135 aims to:

  • Prevent unlawful use of state power against individuals.

  • Ensure that trials and detentions occur only in accordance with law.

  • Create accountability for misuse of power.

  • Reinforce the idea that even those in authority are subject to law.

⚖️ Key Ingredients of the Offence

To establish an offence under Section 135, these elements must be proven:

  1. The Accused Holds a Legal Office of Authority

    • Must be a magistrate, judge, or officer with legal power to confine or commit a person for trial.

  2. The Accused Uses That Authority

    • The accused must have committed or confined someone using official powers.

  3. Acted Contrary to Law

    • The action must be against legal norms—no valid warrant, denial of fair hearing, no jurisdiction, etc.

  4. Knowledge of Illegality

    • The person knew they were acting against the law.

🧠 Practical Scenarios

Scenario 1: Magistrate Sends an Innocent Person to Trial

A magistrate, under political pressure, sends a person to trial without any evidence, despite knowing the case is fabricated.

Scenario 2: Police Officer Detains a Person Without Warrant

A police officer orders someone to be detained in lockup for over 24 hours without judicial authorization, despite knowing it's illegal.

Scenario 3: Judge Orders Confinement in Civil Dispute

A judge uses criminal confinement provisions in a purely civil business dispute, fully aware that the person hasn't committed a criminal offence.

📜 Punishment under Section 135

The section prescribes:

  • Imprisonment up to seven years, and

  • Fine

This is a serious, cognizable offence, reinforcing the importance of responsible use of judicial or administrative power.

🛡️ Applicability – Who Can Be Charged?

This section applies to:

  • Judicial Magistrates

  • Sessions Judges

  • Police Superintendents

  • Sub-Divisional Officers

  • Jail Superintendents

  • Executive Magistrates

  • Other legally authorized persons under CrPC or special laws

⚖️ Legal Safeguards

Though this section creates strict liability, there are important legal safeguards:

  • Intention must be proven—accidental or negligent illegal orders are not enough.

  • Action must be against law—mere technical error doesn't suffice.

  • Prior government sanction is required to prosecute judicial officers (as per procedural laws like CrPC).

📚 Judicial Interpretations (from IPC analog – Section 220)

🔹 R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 SC 207

The Supreme Court emphasized that unauthorized detentions are unconstitutional and attract both civil and criminal liability.

🔹 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349

The Court stated that power to arrest and detain must be exercised lawfully, not arbitrarily. If done knowingly, it attracts criminal consequences.

🔎 Difference from Other Sections

Provision Purpose Key Difference
Section 133 (False records) Targets record falsification Not directly related to trial/detention
Section 134 (False record to save capital offender) Targets aiding serious criminals Requires falsified records
Section 135 Targets illegal confinement/trial by authority Deals with abuse of legal power, not fabrication

⚠️ Why This Section Is Important

  • It prevents wrongful prosecution and illegal pre-trial detention.

  • It ensures no one is punished merely due to official misconduct.

  • It reinforces that positions of power come with legal responsibility.

🧾 Case Study Example

🔸 Case: Illegal Detention in Dowry Case

A woman’s family files a false dowry case against her husband. The local magistrate, without examining evidence or witness credibility, sends the accused to judicial custody, despite knowing that the case was settled earlier. The magistrate is later booked under Section 135 BNS, once investigation reveals his deliberate misuse of power.

🔁 Due Process Requirements (That Must Be Followed)

To avoid attracting Section 135:

  1. Proper investigation and charge framing

  2. Jurisdiction of the authority must be valid

  3. Reasoned judicial order for confinement or trial

  4. Legal representation must be allowed

  5. Remand orders should follow CrPC guidelines

  6. Compliance with constitutional rights (Articles 21 & 22)

🗂️ International Perspective

Country Similar Law
UK Abuse of Process Doctrine
USA 42 U.S. Code §1983 – Unlawful Detention by Officials
Canada Canadian Charter – Section 9: Arbitrary Detention
Germany Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) §239 – Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty

Most countries recognize unlawful use of legal authority as a crime. India, with Section 135, conforms to global human rights standards.

📌 Summary Table

Feature Details
Section 135 of BNS, 2023
Offence Misuse of legal authority to commit/confinement
Accused Public officers, judges, police with legal authority
Mens Rea Must act knowingly contrary to law
Punishment Up to 7 years + fine
Cognizable Yes
Bailable No
Sanction Required Yes (in case of judges/magistrates)

🏛️ Constitutional Relevance

Section 135 reinforces key constitutional rights:

  • Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty

  • Article 22 – Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention

  • Article 14 – Equality before the law, even for those in authority

This provision serves as a statutory guarantee against state oppression.

✅ How Legal Practitioners Should Use Section 135

For advocates, Section 135 can be:

  • A defense tool in cases of unlawful detention

  • A prosecution ground in PILs and rights violations

  • An advisory clause while guiding clients through police/judicial procedures

🔚 Conclusion

Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023) is a vital provision that keeps judicial and police powers in check. It ensures that no one, not even those in positions of legal authority, can escape liability when they act in bad faith or contrary to law.

The rule of law rests on fairness, transparency, and due process—Section 135 stands as a guardian of that ideal, acting as both a shield for the innocent and a sword against those who misuse power.

📘 Next in the Series

➡️ Section 136 – Unlawful Committal or Confinement to Prevent Proceedings Against a Public Servant

Comments

Post a Comment