Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 160
Procedure on order being made absolute and consequences of disobedience
(1) When an order has been made absolute under section 155 or section 157, the Magistrate shall give notice of the same to the person against whom the order was made, and shall further require him to perform the act directed by the order within the time to be fixed in the notice, and inform him that, in case of disobedience, he shall be liable to the penalty provided by section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(2) If such act is not performed within the time fixed, the Magistrate may cause it to be performed, and may recover the costs of performing it, either by the sale of any building, goods or other property removed by his order, or by the distress and sale of any other movable property of such person within or without such Magistrate's local jurisdiction, and if such other property is without such jurisdiction, the order shall authorise its attachment and sale when endorsed by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the property to be attached is found.
(3) No suit shall lie in respect of anything done in good faith under this section.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing colonial-era mechanism (from the Code of Criminal Procedure) meant to give teeth to public nuisance orders — such as those requiring removal of illegal encroachments, obstructions on roads, or dangerous structures. Without an enforcement and cost-recovery mechanism, such orders could be ignored indefinitely. The good-faith immunity in sub-section (3) protects officials from harassment litigation while they carry out lawful public-safety functions.
How courts read it
Courts under the earlier CrPC provision (section 141, materially identical) have held that strict compliance with the notice requirement is mandatory before enforcement action can be taken, since it affects a person's property rights. Courts have also read the 'good faith' immunity narrowly, protecting only actions done honestly and with due care, not arbitrary or malicious enforcement.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The Magistrate can seize and sell any property without approval, even outside their area.
Fact: If the property is outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, another Magistrate in that area must first endorse (approve) the attachment and sale. - Myth: People can sue the Magistrate for any loss suffered because of enforcement action.
Fact: The law specifically bars lawsuits for actions taken in good faith under this section, protecting officials acting honestly and lawfully.