What is IPC Section 156?
IPC Section 156 sits in Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, "Of Offences Against the Public Tranquillity," immediately following Section 155, which creates liability for a person for whose benefit a riot is committed. Section 156 extends this liability one step further, to the agent or manager of that person — recognising that in practice, the person actually managing affairs on the ground, rather than the ultimate beneficiary themselves, may be the one in a position to prevent or stop the riot.
This is a form of secondary liability distinct from direct participation in a riot. An agent or manager who commits acts of violence themselves would instead be liable under the substantive riot provisions (Sections 146–148); Section 156 is reserved for the narrower situation where the agent or manager did not participate, but failed in their preventive duty despite reason to believe the riot was likely.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Section 156 IPC now corresponds to Section 193(3) of the BNS, which consolidates Sections 154, 155, and 156 IPC into a single provision with sub-clauses.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 156 IPC
This provision must be read together with Section 155, since Section 156 depends entirely on the underlying circumstances that trigger Section 155's liability — the riot must have been committed for the benefit or on behalf of a person with the connections to the land or dispute described there. Section 156 then imposes a parallel duty specifically on that person's agent or manager.
Punishment Under Section 156
| Punishment | Fine (the amount is not fixed by the section, and is determined at the court's discretion) |
|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Non-cognizable — police generally require a Magistrate's order to investigate or arrest |
| Bailable / Non-Bailable | Bailable — bail is a matter of right |
| Compoundable | Non-compoundable |
| Triable By | Any Magistrate |
Unlike Section 154, which caps the fine at ₹1,000, Section 156 does not specify a maximum, leaving the amount to the court's discretion based on the facts of the case, including the scale of the riot and the extent of the agent or manager's failure to act.
Key Ingredients / Essential Elements
A riot committed for the benefit of, or on behalf of, a connected person
The riot must have been committed for the benefit of, or on behalf of, someone who is the owner or occupier of the relevant land, claims an interest in it or in the underlying dispute, or has accepted or derived benefit from the riot.
The accused's status as agent or manager
The accused must be the agent or manager of that connected person.
Reason to believe the riot or assembly was likely
The agent or manager must have had reason to believe that the riot, or the unlawful assembly leading to it, was likely to occur.
Failure to use all lawful means to prevent, suppress, or disperse it
Despite this, the agent or manager must have failed to use all lawful means in their power to prevent the riot or assembly, or to suppress and disperse it once underway.
How Section 156 Relates to Sections 154 and 155
Sections 154, 155, and 156 together create overlapping layers of preventive responsibility connected to riots and unlawful assemblies:
- Section 154 covers the owner or occupier of the land where the riot occurs.
- Section 155 covers the person for whose benefit the riot is committed — who may or may not be the landowner.
- Section 156 (this section) extends Section 155's liability further, to the agent or manager acting for that beneficiary.
All three share the same non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable classification and are tried by any Magistrate, reflecting a common statutory scheme addressing secondary, preventable responsibility for riots.
Historical Application of Sections 155 and 156
Nripendra Bhusan Ray & Bepin Behari Dutt — Simakhali Market Riot (1922)
In an early application of these provisions, a zamindar named Nripendra Bhusan Ray owned a market in Simakhali that faced competition from a rival market in Kholabari, leading to rising tensions and a riot in 1922. Police accused both Nripendra and his manager, Bepin Behari Dutt, of encouraging the violence, and charged them under Sections 155 and 156 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.