Section 368: Disobeying a lawful official order
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดทราบคำสั่งของเจ้าพนักงานซึ่งสั่งการตามอำนาจที่มีกฎหมายให้ไว้ ไม่ปฏิบัติตามคำสั่งนั้นโดยไม่มีเหตุหรือข้อแก้ตัวอันสมควร ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินสิบวัน หรือปรับไม่เกินห้าพันบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ ถ้าการสั่งเช่นว่านั้น เป็นคำสั่งให้ช่วยทำกิจการในหน้าที่ของเจ้าพนักงานซึ่งกฎหมายกำหนดให้สั่งให้ช่วยได้ ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินหนึ่งเดือน หรือปรับไม่เกินหนึ่งหมื่นบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๖ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘]
English translation
Whoever, knowing of an order given by an official under a power conferred by law, fails to comply with it without reasonable cause or excuse, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten days, or a fine not exceeding five thousand baht, or both.
Where the order was to assist an official in the performance of a duty in which the law empowers the official to require assistance, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand baht, or both.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
The elements are (1) knowledge of an order, (2) issued by an official under authority conferred by law, and (3) failure to comply without reasonable cause or excuse. The order must be within the official's legal authority, so an unlawful or ultra vires order does not attract liability, and the person must actually know of it. As a petty offence the penalty is minor, but it underpins the practical enforceability of a wide range of routine official directions, from investigative steps to traffic and safety orders. It is distinct from the more serious offences of resisting or obstructing officials by force in the earlier Titles of the Code.
Why this matters in practice
The custodial exposure is only ten days, so cases are usually resolved by fine, but the section is frequently charged alongside traffic and other regulatory offences and can be used to compel steps such as reporting or fingerprinting. The strongest defences are that the order exceeded the official's lawful authority, that the accused had no actual knowledge of it, or that there was a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The Supreme Court has confirmed, for instance, that refusing to be fingerprinted on a lawful investigator's order, without reasonable cause, is an offence under this section.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3098/2566 (2023)
Refusing to be fingerprinted as ordered by the inquiry official, without reasonable cause or excuse, is an offence under Section 368 paragraph one, since fingerprinting serves purposes beyond mere sentence enhancement.
The defendant refused to give fingerprints on the inquiry official's order. The Court held that fingerprinting is not solely for sentence enhancement, so refusing it without reasonable cause was an offence under Section 368 paragraph one.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 61 Supreme Court decisions (1957 to 2023)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 3098/2566 (2023)
- Decision 1921/2565 (2022)
- Decision 3561/2563 (2020)
- Decision 3578/2560 (2017)
- Decision 7760/2556 (2013)
- Decision 4243/2550 (2007)
- Decision 5552/2541 (1998)
- Decision 3308/2541 (1998)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 91 23
- Section 30 21
- Section 29 20
- Section 90 13
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
When is disobeying an official an offence under Section 368?
When you know of an order the official issued under lawful authority and you fail to comply without a reasonable cause or excuse.
Does the order have to be lawful?
Yes. The order must be within the official's legal authority; an unlawful or excessive order does not create liability under this section.
Is refusing to be fingerprinted an offence?
The Supreme Court has held that refusing to be fingerprinted on a lawful investigator's order, without reasonable cause, is an offence under Section 368 paragraph one.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 368 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 368. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-368/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 368 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-368/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-368/"><p>Whoever, knowing of an order given by an official under a power conferred by law, fails to comply with it without reasonable cause or excuse, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten days, or a fine not exceeding five thousand baht, or both. Where…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 368 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-368/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.