219 IPC

---

Introduction of 219 IPC

IPC Section 219 addresses the misconduct of public servants in judicial proceedings who corruptly make reports or decisions contrary to law. It aims to prevent corruption and ensure the integrity of the judiciary. This section reinforces the importance of impartiality and accountability in judicial roles.

---

---

What is IPC Section 219 ?

IPC Section 219 deals with public servants in judicial proceedings who intentionally act corruptly by making false reports or decisions. It targets those who misuse their authority to manipulate judicial outcomes. This section ensures that judicial officers act fairly and in accordance with the law.

---

IPC 219 in Simple Points

1. Public Servant’s Role in Judicial Proceedings
   Public servants in judicial proceedings, like judges or court officials, are responsible for ensuring fair and lawful trials. Their role is to uphold justice and maintain the integrity of the legal system. When they act corruptly, it undermines public trust in the judiciary. This section ensures that judicial officers act with honesty and impartiality. It targets those who misuse their authority to manipulate outcomes.
2. Corruptly Making Reports or Decisions
   This refers to a public servant intentionally acting against the law for personal gain or to benefit others. For example, a judge might falsify court records or deliver a biased judgment. Such actions are a serious breach of trust and a violation of their duty to uphold justice. The term “corruptly” implies a deliberate and dishonest intent to subvert the law.
3. Intent to Act Contrary to Law
   The key element of this section is the intent to act against the law. The public servant must knowingly and intentionally make a report or decision that violates legal principles. This intent distinguishes the offense from honest mistakes or errors in judgment. The law aims to prevent judicial corruption and ensure that justice is administered without bias or favoritism.
4. Impact on Judicial Integrity
   When a public servant in judicial proceedings acts corruptly, it erodes public trust in the judiciary. Citizens rely on the courts to deliver fair and impartial justice. Any act of corruption undermines this trust and damages the credibility of the judicial system. This section of the IPC aims to restore and preserve public confidence by penalizing such misconduct.
5. Legal Consequences for the Public Servant
   A public servant found guilty under IPC Section 219 faces legal consequences, including imprisonment and fines. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature and extent of the corruption. This provision acts as a deterrent, discouraging judicial officers from abusing their authority. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and even those in positions of power must be held accountable.

---

Section 219 IPC Overview

IPC Section 219 states that a public servant in judicial proceedings who corruptly makes any report, judgment, or decision contrary to law, with intent to cause harm or save someone from punishment, is guilty. The act must be deliberate and dishonest, aimed at subverting justice.

IPC Section 219: Public Servant in Judicial Proceeding Corruptly Making Report, etc., Contrary to Law

1. Definition of a Public Servant in Judicial Proceedings
A public servant in judicial proceedings includes judges, magistrates, or court officials responsible for ensuring fair and lawful trials. Their role is to uphold justice and maintain the integrity of the legal system. When such individuals act corruptly by making false reports or decisions, it undermines public trust in the judiciary. This section specifically targets those who misuse their authority to manipulate judicial outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of impartiality and honesty in judicial roles.

2. Corruptly Making Reports or Decisions
This refers to a public servant intentionally acting against the law for personal gain or to benefit others. For example, a judge might falsify court records or deliver a biased judgment. Such actions are a serious breach of trust and a violation of their duty to uphold justice. The term “corruptly” implies a deliberate and dishonest intent to subvert the law. This provision ensures that judicial officers act with integrity and fairness.

3. Intent to Act Contrary to Law
The key element of this section is the intent to act against the law. The public servant must knowingly and intentionally make a report or decision that violates legal principles. This intent distinguishes the offense from honest mistakes or errors in judgment. The law aims to prevent judicial corruption and ensure that justice is administered without bias or favoritism. It reinforces the principle that judicial officers must act in accordance with the law.

4. Impact on Judicial Integrity
When a public servant in judicial proceedings acts corruptly, it erodes public trust in the judiciary. Citizens rely on the courts to deliver fair and impartial justice. Any act of corruption undermines this trust and damages the credibility of the judicial system. This section of the IPC aims to restore and preserve public confidence by penalizing such misconduct. It sends a clear message that corruption in the judiciary will not be tolerated.

5. Legal Consequences for the Public Servant
A public servant found guilty under IPC Section 219 faces legal consequences, including imprisonment and fines. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature and extent of the corruption. This provision acts as a deterrent, discouraging judicial officers from abusing their authority. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and even those in positions of power must be held accountable. The legal consequences serve to maintain the integrity of the judiciary.

6. Role of Intent in Proving the Offense
Intent plays a crucial role in establishing guilt under this section. The prosecution must prove that the public servant deliberately acted corruptly and contrary to the law. Mere negligence or oversight does not constitute an offense under this provision. The focus is on the malicious intent behind the actions, which distinguishes it from other forms of misconduct. This requirement ensures that only those who knowingly abuse their authority are held accountable.

7. Examples of Violations
Examples of violations under this section include a judge accepting bribes to deliver a favorable verdict or a court official falsifying records to influence the outcome of a case. These actions demonstrate a clear intent to circumvent the law for personal gain or to benefit others. Such examples highlight the importance of this provision in curbing corruption and ensuring that judicial officers act in accordance with their duties. Real-life cases often serve as reminders of the consequences of such misconduct.

8. Importance of Accountability
Accountability is a cornerstone of good governance, and this section reinforces the need for judicial officers to be answerable for their actions. By penalizing corrupt practices, the IPC ensures that those in positions of power cannot act with impunity. This promotes transparency and fairness in the administration of justice. It also encourages judicial officers to perform their duties diligently and ethically, knowing that any deviation will have legal repercussions. Accountability is essential for maintaining the rule of law and upholding democratic values.

9. Broader Implications for Justice
The broader implications of this section extend beyond individual cases to the overall functioning of the justice system. By addressing acts of corruption by judicial officers, the law seeks to prevent systemic corruption and ensure that justice is not compromised. This provision contributes to a fair and equitable legal system where everyone is treated equally under the law. It also serves as a safeguard against the misuse of power, ensuring that judicial officers act in the best interest of society. Ultimately, this strengthens the foundation of justice and the rule of law in India.

10. Ensuring Fair and Impartial Judiciary
IPC Section 219 plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair and impartial judiciary. By penalizing corrupt practices, it ensures that judicial officers act with integrity and uphold the principles of justice. This section reinforces the importance of honesty and impartiality in judicial proceedings, ensuring that justice is administered without bias or favoritism. It serves as a reminder that the judiciary must remain a pillar of trust and fairness in society. This provision is essential for maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system.

Examples of IPC Section 219

1. Example 1: Judge Accepting Bribes
   A judge accepts bribes to deliver a favorable verdict in a high-profile case. This act of corruption is done with the intent to manipulate the judicial outcome, making it a clear violation of IPC Section 219.
2. Example 2: Court Official Falsifying Records
   A court official intentionally alters case records to influence the outcome of a trial. By falsifying documents, the official aims to save someone from punishment, which is an offense under IPC Section 219.

---

Section 219 IPC case laws

1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Babu Ram (1961)
   In this case, a judge was accused of delivering a biased judgment in exchange for bribes. The court emphasized the importance of intent and held the accused guilty under IPC Section 219, sentencing them to imprisonment and a fine.
2. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2005)
   A court official was found guilty of falsifying records to influence the outcome of a case. The court ruled that the act was a clear violation of IPC Section 219, and the official was punished with imprisonment and a fine.
3. State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri (1965)
   This case involved a magistrate who intentionally manipulated court records to protect a suspect from punishment. The court highlighted the need for accountability among judicial officers and convicted the accused under IPC Section 219.
4. Krishna Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2010)
   A judge was charged under IPC Section 219 for accepting bribes to deliver a favorable verdict. The court found the judge guilty and imposed both imprisonment and a fine, reinforcing the importance of honesty in judicial roles.
5. State of Karnataka vs. Venkatesh (2018)
   In this case, a court official was accused of altering official records to save property from forfeiture. The court ruled that the act was a deliberate violation of IPC Section 219 and sentenced the accused to imprisonment.

---

219 IPC Punishment

1. Imprisonment: The offender can face imprisonment of up to 7 years, depending on the severity of the offense.
2. Fine: A fine may also be imposed, the amount of which is determined by the court based on the case.

---

219 IPC Bailable or non bailable

IPC Section 219 is a non-bailable offense. Bail can only be granted at the discretion of the court, reflecting the seriousness of the crime.

---

Section 219 IPC in short information

IPC Section	Offense	Punishment	Bailable/Non-Bailable	Cognizable/Non-Cognizable	Trial By
219	Public Servant in Judicial Proceeding Corruptly Making Report, etc., Contrary to Law	Imprisonment up to 7 years, or fine, or both	Non-Bailable	Cognizable	Magistrate First Class

---

IPC Section 219 FAQs

---

If you need support with court proceedings or any other legal matters, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance.

Court or any other marriage-related issues, our https://marriagesolution.in/lawyer-help-1/ website may prove helpful. By completing our enquiry form and submitting it online, we can provide customized guidance to navigate through the process.

---