40 exam-style questions on this chapter, written from the actual legal text and tagged for UPSC, Judiciary and CLAT. Five are shown below with answers and explanations — the rest are in the free interactive drill.
Q1 · easy · BNS S.198
Which of the following is NOT an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 198 (Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury)?
- A.The accused must be a public servant.
- B.The accused must knowingly disobey a direction of the law as to how he is to conduct himself.
- C.The accused's disobedience must have actually caused physical injury to a person.✓ correct
- D.There must be intention to cause, or knowledge that it is likely the disobedience will cause, injury to any person.
Why: Section 198 requires a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law and intends to cause, or knows it likely will cause, injury. It does not make actual physical injury a necessary element; the mental state (intention or knowledge of likelihood) suffices.
Read Section 198 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person →Q2 · easy · BNS S.198
What punishment does Section 198 prescribe for the offence of a public servant knowingly disobeying a direction of law with intent or knowledge likely to cause injury?
- A.Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.✓ correct
- B.Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
- C.Only a fine.
- D.Capital punishment in extreme cases.
Why: The provision states the offender 'shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.' No longer terms or capital punishment are provided.
Read Section 198 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person →Q3 · medium · BNS S.198
A public servant deliberately disobeys an administrative instruction given by his superior which is not a 'direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself.' Is he liable under Section 198?
- A.Yes, because any instruction from a superior is covered by the section.
- B.Yes, but only if the instruction was issued by a Court.
- C.No, because the offence applies to disobedience of a direction of the law as to how he is to conduct himself.✓ correct
- D.Yes, but only if a person is actually injured.
Why: Section 198 specifically requires disobedience of 'any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant.' An ordinary administrative instruction not amounting to a direction of law is not covered by the text.
Read Section 198 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person →Q4 · medium · BNS S.198
Which of the following correctly states the required mental element for an offence under Section 198?
- A.The public servant must knowingly disobey a direction of law and either intend to cause injury or know it is likely his disobedience will cause injury.✓ correct
- B.Negligent disobedience of law that unintentionally causes injury is sufficient.
- C.Only the intention to cause injury is required; knowledge of the disobedience is irrelevant.
- D.Only actual injury matters; mental state is immaterial.
Why: The section requires that the public servant 'knowingly disobeys any direction of the law' and does so 'intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person.' Negligence or mere actual injury without the specified mental state is not sufficient.
Read Section 198 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person →Q5 · hard · BNS S.198
A public servant knowingly disobeys a direction of law knowing his disobedience is likely to cause injury to Person A, but as a result Person B (a different person) is injured. Under Section 198 is the public servant criminally liable?
- A.No — liability attaches only if the person he foresaw (Person A) is injured.
- B.Yes — the section covers causing or knowing it likely to cause injury to 'any person', so injury to a different person is still within the provision.✓ correct
- C.No — liability requires that the injured person be specified in the direction of law.
- D.Yes — but only if the Court that pronounced the direction expressly mentioned the injured person.
Why: Section 198 criminalises disobedience done 'intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person.' The phrase 'any person' shows liability is not limited to a particular person anticipated; injury to a different person still falls within the provision.
Read Section 198 — Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person →35 more questions on Of Offences By Or Relating To Public Servants
Drill them interactively — instant feedback, links to every provision, and your accuracy tracked on the syllabus map. Free.
Start the free drill →Questions are AI-generated from the legal text, machine-verified against the provision, and editorially reviewable. Education, not legal advice.