Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 227
repealedViolation of condition of remission of punishment
Whoever, having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates any condition on which such remission was granted, shall be punished with the punishment to which he was originally sentenced, if he has already suffered no part of that punishment, and if he has suffered any part of that punishment, then with so much of that punishment as he has not already suffered.
Why this exists
Governments sometimes reduce or suspend a convict's sentence (remission) as an act of mercy or to encourage good behavior, but attach conditions—like staying out of trouble or reporting to authorities. Section 227 exists to make sure that mercy isn't abused: if the person deliberately breaks the conditions, the state can restore the original punishment. This maintains the deterrent value of criminal sentences while still allowing flexibility for good conduct.
How courts read it
Indian courts have generally held that remission is an executive act under the relevant remission rules (and Sections 432-433 of the CrPC), and that violation must be 'knowing'—meaning deliberate or willful, not accidental or due to circumstances beyond the person's control. Courts have emphasized that before restoring the full sentence, authorities must establish that the condition was clearly communicated and consciously broken.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Breaking any condition, even by accident, brings back the full punishment.
Fact: The law requires the violation to be 'knowing'—that is, deliberate. Courts have read this to mean accidental or unavoidable breaches don't automatically trigger this section. - Myth: The person always has to serve the entire original sentence again from scratch.
Fact: The section clearly states that if part of the punishment was already served, only the remaining part must be served.