Section 368 — Disobeying a lawful official order
English translation
Whoever, having knowledge of an order of an official issued under the authority given to him by law, fails to comply with that order without reasonable cause or excuse, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding ten days or a fine not exceeding five thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
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.
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.