IPC Section 151- Assembly Of Five Or More Persons

If the assembly is likely to disturb the public peace, joining or continuing to be part of such an assembly after it has been lawfully commanded to disperse, is a punishable offence. Section 151 falls under Chapter VIII of the Code which deals with offences against public tranquillity. Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") empowers a Magistrate and an officer in charge of a police station to disperse an assembly of five or more persons if such assembly is likely to disturb the public peace.&

Legal Provision: Section 151- Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse

Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: If the assembly is an unlawful assembly within the meaning of section 141, the offender will be punishable under section 145.

Simplified explanation of IPC Section 151

Section 151 of the Code provides for an act of participating or continuing to be a part of an assembly of five or more people after the assembly has been lawfully ordered to disperse by the concerned authority. If the assembly is likely to cause a disturbance to the public peace, the authorities are empowered to order the dispersal of such assembly. Even after the issuance of a lawful order commanding the dispersal of the assembly, if the assembly does not break, those who are part of that assembly will be liable to be punished under Section 151 of the Code. Section 151 imposes a punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

The ‘explanation’ provided under Section 151 of the Code provides a difference between Section 145 and 151 of the Code. The ‘explanation’ to Section 151 provides that if the said assembly is considered to be an “unlawful assembly” as provided under Section 141 of the Code, then those who are part of that assembly will be liable to be punished as per the provisions of Section 145.

In order to secure a conviction for the crime under Section 151 are as follows:

1. the assembly was of five or more persons;
2. the assembly is likely to cause a disturbance to public peace;
3. the assembly has been commanded to disperse and this command was lawful;
4. it must also be proved that the accused joined or remained in the assembly after the command to disperse was given;
5. Finally, it must be shown that the accused knowingly joined the assembly.

Practical examples illustrating IPC Section 151

Think of it: Twenty people are gathered in a public park to protest an unpopular new local regulation. At first, the protest is peaceful, but as the crowd grows, some tension starts to build. The crowd gets very loud; people in the crowd are starting to get rowdy and a fight is about to start, or it looks like property damage is about to occur.

Scenario 1: Order to disperse

• The police then arrived on the scene and had reasons to believe that the demonstration would cause a disturbance to the public peace. Hence, they asked the group by lawful command to disperse and leave the park. Some of the group members, including John, refused to leave and continued to shout and protest.
• Outcome: John and those who remained behind would be guilty under section 151 since they knowingly became members of an assembly of five or more persons after an order had been announced to disperse and their conduct had a likelihood of causing a breach of peace.
• Punishment: John and those who remained behind would be liable to punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months, or with fine, or both.

Scenario 2: Unlawful assembly

• If along with this, the assembly has already been declared an "unlawful assembly" under Section 141 (perhaps because this protest was neither sanctioned by the police nor has it the backing under Section 129 and had already been warned away several times by the police), then John and others might be charged more severely under Section 145.
• Outcome: As the assembly is now an unlawful assembly, John can be charged under 145, that usually has a more robust punishment.

So in both cases, the following are the crux of it:

• The crowd probably was going to cause a disturbance of public peace.
• They were legally given a dispersal order but failed to do so.
• The member of the assembly who remains behind in such an assembly after the dispersal orders, will be liable to be punished as prescribed by the law.

Penalties and punishments under IPC Section 151

Upon the conviction under Section 151 of the Code, the convicted person is punishable

• with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may exceed to six months, or
• with a fine only, or
• with both such imprisonment and fine, as the case may be.

Case laws related to IPC Section 151

Kempe Gowda & Ors. vs. The State of Mysore (1953)

The case of Kempe Gowda & Ors. vs. The State of Mysore (1953), relates to the conviction of six individuals who were accused of refusing to disperse from a place where they all were harvesting crops. The Court considered that the police inspector's order to disperse was unlawful since the mere presence of the defendants on the land, which they claimed to own through a duly registered sale deed, did not per se constitute disturbance of peace. The convictions were quashed, and it was directed that the amount paid as fines by the applicants be refunded. This judgement has several clarifications regarding the interpretation and application of Section 151 Code (IPC).

The judgement makes it clear that mere disobedience of an order of an Inspector is not enough to frame charges under Section 151 of the Code. The Court held that the Magistrate is obliged to adduce evidence to show that the assembly was likely to disturb public peace. It further points out the need for a "lawful" direction under Section 151. It observed that "lawfully" means the competency of the authority making the direction and the reasonable apprehension of breach of public peace. If either requirement is lacking, the direction is not "lawful." The Court, therefore, opines that if the accused were trying to harvest crops in land which they thought belonged to them, their act, by itself, would not warrant an order under Section 151. Other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code should be resorted to for preventing a breach of peace over land disputes.

Komma Neelakantha Reddy & Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1978)

In Komma Neelakantha Reddy & Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1978), charges were filed against twenty-five accused persons with a FIR which was submitted by the three police officers who were present at the scene. Their acquittal in the trial Court was reversed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and so the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The appeal deals with the credibility of police witnesses and framing of charges under Sections 149 and 151 of the Code, relating to unlawful assembly and common intent. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of only those three defendants who were directly involved in the violence but acquitted the remaining appellants due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove their common criminal intent. The judgement is specific in its guidance regarding the application of Section 151 of the Code. It held that Sec. 151 would apply only when an assembly is "lawfully commanded to disperse" and evidence must show that such a command had been given. The Court said that the action of the police officers in the instant case, merely warning the two groups throwing stones, could by no means be regarded as a "lawful command to disperse."

Recent changes

Since its enactment, there has been no amendment in Section 151 of the Code.

Summary

Section 151 of the Code applies to a person remaining in an assembly of five or more persons if the same appears likely to cause a public disturbance. Failure to obey a lawful order to disperse would attract an imprisonment which may extend to six months, or fine, or both as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Code.

Key insights & quick facts

• Penalty: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or both.
• An assembly that is unlawful under Section 141 may face tougher punishment under Section 145.
• The issued command to disperse should be lawful.
• Number: Five or more are necessary to constitute an assembly under Section 151.
• Risk of disturbance: The assembly must be tending to disrupt the public peace.
• The order to disperse has been disobeyed by the assembly.
• Cognizable: As per Schedule 1 of CrPC, the offence under Section 151 is a cognizable offence.
• Bailable: As per Schedule 1 of CrPC, the offence under Section 151 is a bailable offence.
• Triable: As per Schedule 1 of CrPC, the offence under Section 151 is triable by any Magistrate.
• Non-compoundable: As per Section 320 of CrPC, the offence under Section 151 is a non-compoundable offence.