Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
[3 OF 19841]
An Act to provide for prevention of damage to public property and for matters connected therewith.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-fifth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
Short title, extent and commencement.
1. (1) This Act may be called the Prevention of Damage to public Property Act, 1984.
(2) It extends to the whole of India 2[***].
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 28th day of January 1984.
De nitions.
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “mischief” shall have the same meaning as in section 4253 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) “public property” means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the conduct of—
(i) the Central Government; or
(ii) any State Government; or
(iii) any local authority; or
(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act; or
(
v) any company as defined in section 6174 of the Companies Act,1956 (1 of 1956); or
1. Dated 16-3-1984.
2. Word “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” omitted by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, w.e.f. 31-10-2019.
3. Vide S.O. 2790(E), dated 16-7-2024, now read as section 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Now see section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013.
S. 3 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 2
(vi) any institution, concern or undertaking which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided that the Central Government shall not specify any institution, concern or undertaking under this sub-clause unless such institution, concern or undertaking is financed wholly or substantially by finds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or by one or more State Government, or party by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments.
Mischief causing damage to public property.
3. (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ve years and with ne.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any property being—
(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(b) any oil installations;
(
c) any sewage works;
(d) any mine or factory;
(
e) any means of public transportation or of telecommunications, or any building installation or other property in connection therewith, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to ve years and with ne:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
3.1 Mischief
“Mischief” shall have the same meaning as in section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [Section 2(a)]
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has repealed and replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) effective 01.07.2024. Therefore, in view of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, reference to section 425 of IPC is to be read as a reference to section 324(1) of BNS
With effect from 01.07.2024, “mischief” shall have the same meaning as in section 324(1) of BNS.
3.2 Public Property
“Public property” means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery), which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the conduct of— (i) the Central Government; or
(ii) any State Government; or
(iii) any local authority; or
(
iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act; or
(v) any company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act,1956 (i.e. “Government Company” as defined in section 617 of Companies Act,1956/as defined in section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 ; or
(
vi) any institution, concern or undertaking which is financed wholly or substantially by finds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or by one or more State Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf-
3.3 Punishment for committing mischief in respect of specified public property
Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any specified public property, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine: [Section 3(2)]
The court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. [Proviso to section 3(2)]
The following public property is specified public property:
(
a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(
b) any oil installations;
(
c) any sewage works;
(
d) any mine or factory;
(
e) any means of public transportation or of telecommunications, or any building installation or other property in connection therewith
If the offence of mischief in respect of any specified public property as above is committed by fire or explosive substance, the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to ten years and with fine [See Section 4] The court may, for special reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.
3.4 Punishment for committing mischief in respect of public property other than specified public property
Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property other than specified public property, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine: [Section 3(1)]
If the offence of mischief as above is committed by fire or explosive substance, the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to ten years and with a fine [See Section 4]
The court may, for special reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.
3.5 Bailability of Offence
No person accused or convicted of an offence punishable under section 3 or section 4 shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. [Section 5]
S. 3 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 4
CASE LAWS
Denial of Quashing Petition Based on Prima Facie Case - In this matter, Shree Ram Verma sought the quashing of charges under sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, alleging that the prosecution was malicious and intended to harass him. The Allahabad High Court observed that a prima facie case was established against the petitioner based on the evidence on record, and thus quashing was not warranted. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrendered within 45 days and applied for bail, the trial court would consider his bail application in light of established legal principles.—Shree Ram Verma v. State of U.P. AIR ONLINE 2018 All. 2325.
Destruction of Public Property in Legislative Assembly Not Covered by Privileges - In this case, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Kerala caused significant damage to Assembly property during a protest. The accused MLAs argued that their actions were shielded by parliamentary privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution, contending that their conduct within the Assembly was protected. However, the Supreme Court held that acts of vandalism do not constitute “proceedings” of the Assembly and cannot be protected under legislative privileges. It emphasized that elected representatives are subject to criminal law just as any other citizen. The application for withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 of the CrPC was denied, as allowing it would unjustly exempt public officials from legal consequences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.—State of Kerala v. K. Ajith AIR 2021 SC 3954.
Denial of Quashing Petition and Option for Discharge Application - In this case, Mahendra Vishwakarma sought the quashing of proceedings under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, claiming the case was initiated to harass him and submitted documents to support his defense. The Allahabad High Court held that disputed evidence from the accused could not be considered in quashing proceedings under section 482 of the CrPC. Instead, the Court directed that the applicant could seek discharge by filing an application under Section 239 or 227/228 of the CrPC. The Court granted temporary relief from coercive action if the discharge application was filed within a month.—Mahendra Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. AIR ONLINE 2018 All. 5068.
Grant of Bail Due to Lack of Direct Allegations and Extended Custody - In this case, petitioners facing charges under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, along with various sections of the IPC, sought bail. The Rajasthan High Court granted bail, noting that no specific actions were attributed to the accused individuals, and they had been in custody for over a month without further investigative need. Given these factors, the Court found continued detention unwarranted and ordered their release on personal and surety bonds.—Yogendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan AIR ONLINE 2018 Raj. 267.
Reduction of Sentence for Minimal Damage to Public Property - In this case, the appellants were convicted under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act for causing minor damage, which included breaking an electric bulb, some window glasses, and one mirror. Initially sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the time already served, noting the minimal nature of the damage. The Court emphasized proportionality in sentencing, particularly when the impact of the offense on public property was limited.—Mohammed Osman v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR ONLINE 2000 SC 451.
Temporary Stay on Arrest for Alleged Public Property Damage During ProtestIn a case involving allegations of rioting and property damage, the accused, Munnilal Gautam and others, faced charges under multiple sections of the IPC, including Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. They argued the charges were false and filed with malicious intent. Noting a similar interim order for co-accused in
5 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984
related cases, the Allahabad High Court granted temporary protection from arrest until the police completed their investigation and submitted a report under section 173(2) of the CrPC, provided the accused cooperated with the investigation.—Munnilal Gautam v. State of U.P. AIR ONLINE 2018 All 2979.
Denial of Bail in Riot Case Due to Need for Further Evidence - Shadab Alam and eight others sought bail after being charged under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, along with various IPC sections, for alleged involvement in riots that included setting vehicles on fire. The Delhi High Court denied bail, noting the ongoing investigation and the requirement for scientific evidence, such as video footage, to determine the individuals present at the scene. The Court observed that even if the accused did not individually damage property, membership in an unlawful assembly could result in liability under the Act.—Shadab Alam v. State AIR ONLINE 2020 Del. 591.
Absence of Caste-Based Motive in Property Damage and Murder Case - In this case, the appellants, Hari Shankar, Babloo, and Sri Chand, were accused of murdering Ranjeet and causing damage to public property, alongside charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution argued that they assaulted Ranjeet with axes, resulting in his death. However, the Allahabad High Court found no evidence indicating the murder was motivated by caste discrimination, negating charges under the SC/ST Act. Furthermore, the Court set aside certain convictions, including dishonestly misappropriating the victim’s motorcycle, while upholding life sentences under other charges.—Chand v. State of U.P. AIR ONLINE 2018 All. 4387.
Denial of Quashing Petition for Damage to Public Property - In this case, the petitioner, Satyapal Singh, sought to quash charges filed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, arguing that no offense was substantiated by the evidence presented. The Allahabad High Court, however, found that the petitioner did not provide adequate proof to dispute the allegations. The Court held that the charge sheet and proceedings should continue, noting that a mere claim of insufficient evidence without substantiation does not justify quashing charges under section 482 of the CrPC.—Satyapal Singh v. State of U.P. AIR ONLINE 2018 All. 1898.
Guidelines for Preventing and Assessing Damages in Public Protests - Addressing rampant destruction of public and private property during bandhs and protests, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act to enhance preventive actions and facilitate damage assessment. The Court recommended steps such as route planning with law enforcement, banning weapons, mandatory marshals for crowd control, and extensive videography to document protests. Additionally, the Court outlined a process for damage assessment, where a Claims Commissioner could be appointed to estimate damages and assign liability, including exemplary damages up to twice the actual damage cost. These guidelines aim to impose accountability on organizers and participants in violent protests, ensuring they bear legal and financial consequences for public property damage.—Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of A.P. AIR 2009 SC 2266.
Grant of Anticipatory Bail Due to Misidentification in Allegations - In this case, Mahendra and others appealed a denial of anticipatory bail after being accused under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and other IPC sections. The FIR alleged that the complainant went to the appellants’ father’s farm to disconnect an electricity connection for unpaid dues, leading to an altercation. However, case records showed the disconnection pertained to another individual, Nathi Jatav, not the appellants’ father. The Rajasthan High Court, recognizing this misidentification, granted anticipatory bail with conditions, overturning the initial denial.—Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan AIR ONLINE 2018 Raj. 464.
