2.1 ABETMENT

2.1.1 Punishment of Abetment

IPC (S 109) – This section does not lay down any specific punishment for abetment or abettor but directs the same punishment as the principal offender committing punishment is laid down for abettor in that particular offence.  In order to become an abettor for a particular offence the person must have done any of the three acts – i.e. investigation, aiding or conspiracy.

BNS (S49) – This section also lays down the same as in S109 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.2 Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor

IPC (S110) – Here also the abettor has to suffer the same punishment as the principal offender had committed the act with different intention or with different knowledge from that of the offender.

BNS (S50) – This section also lays down the same as in S110 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.3 Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with a different intention from that of abettor

IPC (S111) – When an act is abetted and a different act is done then the abettor is liable for the act done in the manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it.  It is also to be kept in mind that the act done was probable consequence of the abetment and was committed under the influence of the instigation or with the aid and in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

BNS (S51) – This section also lays down the same as in S111 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.4 Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done

IPC (S 112) – An abettor shall be liable for abetment as well as for offences committed by the principal offender.  This section is an extension of the former section.

BNS (S52) – This section also lays down the same as in S112 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.5 Liability of an abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor

IPC (S113) – When the effect caused in pursuance to the act committed to instigation was quite probable and was in the knowledge of the abettor then the abettor shall be punished for the offence with the same punishment.

BNS (S53) – This section also lays down the same as in S113 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.6 Abettor present when offence is committed

IPC (S114) – If the abettor is present at the time of commission of the offence but someone else other than the abettor commits the act, abettor shall be punished with the same punishment as of committing the act.

BNS (S54) – This section also lays down the same as in S114 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.7 Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

IPC (S115) – If any one abets the commission of an offence for which the punishment would be death or life imprisonment and the person abetted does not commit the offence, then the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.  If the act of causing harm is done in consequence, then the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to a term of fourteen years and shall also be liable to punishment.

BNS (S55) –This section also lays down the same as in S115 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.8 Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment if offence is not committed

IPC (S116):- If any person abets and the offence is punishable with imprisonment and such offence is not committed in consequence of such abetment, then the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence or with such fine as is provided for that offence or with both. If the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty is to prevent such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one half of the longest term provided for that offence or with such fine as provided for the offence, or with both.

 BNS (S56) – This section also lays down the same as in S116 of IPC.

 There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.9 Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons

IPC (S 117) – Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public or by a class of persons more than ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or fine or both.

BNS (S57) – Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public or by a class of persons more than ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or fine or both.

The punishment has been enhanced from 3 years to 7 years.

2.1.10 Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent IPC(S119) – If the abettor is a public servant whose it is to prevent the commission of any offence instead abets the commission of such offence by voluntarily concealing any act or by illegal omission, the existence of the design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false representing such design, shall if offence is committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may enter to one-half of the longest term of such imprisonment  or with such fine as is provided for that offence or with both. If the for which it is abetted is publishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. If for abetted the offence is not committed shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both.

BNS (S59) – This section also lays down the same as in S119 of IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

2.1.11 Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

IPC ( S120) – If any person voluntarily conceals the design to commit an offence or has the knowledge that such concealment shall given rise to any  offence by any act or illegal omission or makes any representation which he knows to be false representing such design, if offence is there by committed , be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one fourth and if offence is not committed one-eight of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both.

BNS (S60) – This section also lays down the same as in S120 OF IPC.

There is no change in the above two provisions.

Reforms in Investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

S.No.	Topic	Page
1.	Introduction Importance of effective investigation in the criminal justice system Current Judicial Sentencing 1.2.1 Current Provisions in the Indian Criminal Laws	1-5 2-3 3-5
2.	Constitutional Framework 2.1 Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination 2.2 Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty	5-7 5-6 6-7
3.	Legal Status and Admissibility	7-11
	3.1 Constitutional validity	8-9
	3.2 Legal Implications of Narco Tests	9-11
4.	Arguments Against Narcoanalysis	11-13
5.	Conclusion	13-15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reforms in Investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

1. Introduction

1.1 Importance of effective investigation in the criminal justice system

Ensuring the successful indictment of criminals is crucial for upholding peace and order in any law-abiding community, serving as a fundamental requirement for the enforcement of legal principles. The police, being a pivotal component within the criminal justice framework, bear the duty of curbing criminal activities and preserving societal harmony, thereby holding a significant interest in the outcome of legal proceedings against offenders. Subsequent to conducting investigations, wherein evidence is meticulously gathered, law enforcement officers submit a comprehensive charge-sheet to initiate criminal trials within competent judicial bodies. Within India, mechanisms for overseeing these trials, termed as “trial monitoring” or alternatively as Court Monitoring in certain jurisdictions, manifest in various formats across district police units and specialized divisions. Nevertheless, there exists no explicit legal directive mandating such oversight by the police force in India. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) delineates a restrained role for law enforcement in criminal trials, devoid of any specific allocation of responsibilities throughout the procedural sequence.[1]

The efficacy of governance in upholding the Rule of Law, fostering democracy, facilitating development, and safeguarding human rights hinges upon the extent of progress achieved in the realm of criminal justice. The goals of criminal justice encompass the prohibition and crime management, preservation of public order and tranquility, safeguarding the rights of victims and individuals entangled in legal conflicts, the punitive and rehabilitative treatment of those found culpable of criminal offenses, and overall safeguarding of property and life from the scourge of crime and lawlessness. This responsibility is deemed paramount for the state under the constitution of India. The primary institutional aspects in of the criminal justice system consist of agencies that oversee enforcement of law, the judiciary, and correctional institutions. While the Constitution of India allocates authority over Police and Prison Administration to the states, the Supreme Court at the federal level and High Courts at the state level oversee the judiciary across the nation. Despite police and prisons falling under state jurisdiction, the organizational framework, administration, and operations of all criminal justice agencies adhere to federal statutes such as the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Evidence Act, the Police Act, and the Prison Act.[2]

Within our nation, the primary legal frameworks contain the IPC and the criminal procedure code, with the IPC serving as substantive legislation and the Cr.P.C functioning as procedural guidance. Notably, female law enforcement officers assume significant responsibilities in ensuring justice administration. They have demonstrated their adeptness in extracting pertinent details from female offenders and juvenile delinquents, thereby contributing significantly to the justice system.[3]

1.2 Current Judicial Sentencing

The prevailing judicial sentencing approach in India is subject to a multitude of influences. This encompasses media dynamics, the advent of digital textual evidence, international extradition accords, and the rise of intellectual property offenses. Media exerts a great impact on societal perceptions regarding crime and justice which is a pivotal aspect within the democratic framework of India. Concurrently, the advent of digital textual evidence, propelled by IT advancements, has expanded the evidentiary landscape within the criminal justice domain. Furthermore, the extradition treaty framework guarantees the inability of offenders to evade accountability for their transgressions. This highlights the interconnectedness of global justice systems.[4]

1.2.1 Current Provisions in the Indian Criminal Laws

In 1833, the British government established the “Indian Law Commission” to study the jurisdiction, powers, and rules of existing courts. Their mandate included preparing reports on their findings and recommending improvements. This commission worked on the Anglo-Indian Codes from 1834 to 1879. One standout achievement of the inaugural Law Commission was the IPC, which Macaulay presented in 1837 and was enacted into law in 1860. Another notable legal consolidation was the code of criminal procedure. Upon its initial enactment in 1861, the Code of Criminal Procedure zealously safeguarded “privileges” or “rights,” alternatively characterized, thus rendering the law both a symbolic and tangible emblem of imperial authority.[5]

The principle of victim compensation, recognized by The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is a significant aspect. Within this framework, Section 250 empowers magistrates to ask the informants to furnish remuneration to individuals accused by them without reasonable cause. Additionally, Section 358 grants the court authority to mandate compensation from one individual to another for unjustly inducing a police officer to make an erroneous arrest. Furthermore, Section 357 provides the court, in a criminal proceeding, with the ability to provide remuneration to the victim while also instructing the payment of prosecution expenses. However, the discretion lies with the sentencing court regarding this matter, and such compensation is to be sourced from the fines collected.[6]

While the fundamental premise of Section 357 in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 aligns closely with the objectives outlined in the UN Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, its applicability is notably restricted as:

• The section is applicable solely upon the accused’s conviction.
• It becomes operative upon the imposition of a fine on the accused as part of the sentence.
• If a fine is not included in the sentence, the magistrate has the authority to mandate compensation for any loss or injury resulting from the offense for which the accused has been sentenced (Sec. 357(3)).
• When determining the compensation, the magistrate must take into account the accused’s financial capability.[7]

1. Shortcomings of the existing investigation process under the CrPC

The primary objective of any system of criminal justice is twofold: to administer retribution upon the perpetrator and to shield the innocent. Those who transgress pose a direct menace to societal order. The apparatus of the state is in operation to deter criminal activity and mete out punishment to the wrongdoer. Proper adherence to legal statutes demands that transgressors face appropriate consequences, while concurrently ensuring that the innocent remain protected under the auspices of the law. Though imperative for ascertaining truth, the adoption of improper methodologies or procedures, at times, risks encroaching upon the fundamental rights of the accused or other involved parties. However, the principles of liberty and human rights within the realm of criminal justice must invariably remain inviolable. While the accused or detained individual may, in certain instances, be subject to lawful sanctions, their entitlement to justice within the judicial framework must never be compromised.[8]

Defendants play a pivotal role in the criminal proceedings. However, due to the complicated nature of the legal framework, it is infrequent for an accused individual in India to opt for self-representation. Consequently, the lead in legal proceedings typically lies with the defense counsel. Given this scenario, what guidance might be offered to our defendant regarding their plea? The conviction rates for IPC offenses stand at approximately 46%. Yet, these general figures obscure the divergence across various offenses, suggesting the potential for even higher probabilities of achieving an acquittal.[9] Plea bargaining confronts an inherent challenge within the Indian legal system, given the low conviction rates, protracted trial durations, and eligibility limited to offenses carrying sentences of up to seven years. To enhance its appeal and adoption, plea bargaining must provide defendants with substantial incentives to give up the potential benefits of a trial. One potential approach involves defendants admitting guilt in exchange for reduced charges and penalties, such as probation, thereby minimizing legal expenses. However, the absence of charge bargaining impedes this strategy. Additionally, although judges seldom impose the maximum statutory sentence post-trial, plea bargains base sentencing concessions on this maximum, significantly diminishing the defendant’s actual advantage. Moreover, legal practitioners in India typically operate on a per-appearance basis, including state-appointed attorneys who, apart from a nominal retainer, stand to earn more through trials than settlements.[10]

The Cr.P.C., 1973, clearly outlines the law and procedures for investigation. Adherence to these regulations is essential in any offense inquiry. The CBI follows these guidelines along with the Crime Manual, 2005. Detailed provisions regarding investigation procedures are provided. However, challenges arise concerning public servants and government officials. The Single Directive and Sanction for Prosecution often impede investigations. Lack of coordination among agencies and various references to the CBI result in delays, hampering effective investigations. This disjointed approach affects the Criminal Justice System, leading to flawed and prolonged inquiries. Given the increasing crime rates and evolving patterns, empowering the CBI and streamlining investigation processes is imperative to address national security concerns.[11]

Judges play a crucial role, not just in rendering verdicts, but also in molding the judicial framework. However, multiple studies from diverse sources distinctly reveal that the condition of the Indian Legal system leaves much to be desired. A noticeable deficiency in the number of judges has further exacerbated the mounting backlog of cases. The Indian Legal system appears to be adhering to the principle that ‘Justice delayed equals justice denied’. The United States boasts a ratio of 151 judges per million inhabitants, while China, with a population exceeding 1.3 billion, maintains a substantially higher ratio of 170 judges per million individuals. In stark contrast, India lags significantly behind with a meager ratio of only 20 judges per million people. Consequently, countless individuals linger in anticipation of justice.[12]

According to a report, India currently allocates approximately Rs12,000 crore annually to its judiciary, which translates to roughly 0.01% of the GDP. By contrast, defense expenditure constitutes 2% of the GDP. In a striking illustration of practical circumstances, nearly 80% of the special grant of Rs5,000 crore provided by the 13th Finance Commission for enhancing infrastructure related to judiciary and services remained unused.[13]

The advancements in science have significantly elevated contemporary research outcomes, thus cementing the undeniable necessity for such endeavors. The rapid progression of scientific technology permeates through the current landscape of societal progress. Similarly, the legal domain finds itself impacted by these scientific strides, notably within the judicial system, including the criminal justice sector, where scientific advancements exert influence.[14] The court, however, remarked that, “The impugned tests (Narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain fingerprinting tests) being administered compulsorily infringe upon the right against self-incrimination. This is due to the fundamental purpose of ensuring the reliability and voluntary nature of statements accepted as evidence. Consequently, the court has acknowledged that the protective scope of Article 20(3) encompasses the investigative phase in criminal proceedings. When coupled with Section 161(2) of the CrPC, it safeguards not only accused individuals but also suspects and witnesses subjected to interrogation. Any results obtained through coercion cannot be admitted as evidence. Article 20(3) upholds an individual’s prerogative to choose between speaking and maintaining silence, regardless of whether subsequent testimony is incriminating or exculpatory.”[15] Furthermore, law exhibits dynamism rather than remaining static. Consequently, it necessitates continual evolution to align with societal, scientific, ethical, and technological advancements. Thus, imperative reforms in investigation emerge to facilitate expeditious and equitable trials, enhance conviction rates, and safeguard the rights of individuals accused.[16]

2. Proposed Reforms in Investigation

• Reforms in Police investigations

The responsibility of law enforcement is to maintain public order, yet in India, due to a shortage of adequately trained personnel, neither prohibition nor investigation has been effectively executed. The Indian Police Commission, established in July 1902 and led by Sir A.H.L. Fraser, determined that the police force lacks efficiency, suffers from deficiencies in training and organization, lacks adequate supervision, is often perceived as dishonest and harsh, and has failed to gain the trust and active cooperation of the populace. Within the Indian context, both police officers and prosecutors receive inadequate compensation, with the exception of higher-ranking officials. Here, social media exacerbates the issue like a potent catalyst in escalating crime, particularly targeting women, children, and other vulnerable demographics. Public Prosecutors, driven by the desire for recognition, sometimes compromise their integrity, either by pushing for more convictions or by engaging in defense advocacy for illicit monetary gains.[17]

Furthermore, once we overcome these obstacles, we can embrace Evidence-based Policing, which adheres to the same concepts like the proof-based medicine. The medical field engages in thorough research to validate medications and procedures, ensuring their efficacy in patient treatment while minimizing potential harm. Similarly, in law enforcement, officers should employ tactics and strategies proven effective in diminishing, averting, managing, and uncovering crime, while minimizing adverse effects on individuals.[18]

Law enforcement officers ought to employ tactics and strategies that research has demonstrated to be efficacious in diminishing, forestalling, managing, and uncovering criminal activities, while minimizing harm to individuals.^[19] Metropolitan cities alone boast new infrastructure and improved courts; meanwhile, smaller locales and district courts languish in dilapidation. This underscores the imperative to address not just systemic deficiencies but also to engage actively as advocates and researchers to implement superior policies.^[20]

• Strengthening Forensic Science and Technology

Forensic science, a multidisciplinary domain, applies scientific methodologies to examine and resolve criminal cases, marking its pivotal role in global legal systems. In India, the expansive and varied landscape of forensic science comprises numerous specialized domains essential for the legal framework. These encompass, among others,^[21] Fingerprint Analysis, DNA Profiling, Examination of Ballistics and Firearms, Forensic Entomology, Toxicological Analysis, and Psychiatric Forensics. ^[22]

Upon close examination of the Indian Forensic landscape, one can identify numerous deficiencies and challenges that require attention to ensure effective operations. In the legal matter of Dharam Dev Yadav versus the State of UP, the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the significance of forensic evidence, particularly in instances of heinous and meticulously orchestrated offenses.^[23] In Forensic Science, the most concerning problems arise from wrongful convictions due to flawed forensic evidence. Approximately 318 individuals have been exonerated through DNA testing after being wrongly imprisoned due to flawed forensic evidence.^[24]

• Streamlining Investigation Procedures

Access to justice commonly denotes the availability of fair, prompt, and satisfactory legal recourse. Among the various essential components, expeditious adjudication of disputes stands out as a particularly crucial aspect, especially in criminal proceedings. While the adage warns against rushed justice leading to its burial, conversely, delayed justice undermines its essence. Speedy adjudication entails timely resolution by a competent authority. Thus, the essence of this principle lies in achieving a harmonious equilibrium between celerity and judicial integrity.^[25] It is within both the state’s and the individual’s interests to ensure that criminal trials are concluded within a reasonable timeframe, thereby providing validity and definitiveness to rights and commitments.^[26]

The right to a prompt trial, unlike that in the United States and other common law systems, though not explicitly stated in the Constitutional text, is deeply entrenched in the principles and values purportedly demonstrated by the Constitution. To maintain the foundational principles of the rule of law, it is imperative that the principles of justice reign supreme.^[27] Hence, to guarantee the maintenance of the rule of law and to maintain public trust in the institution, it is crucial that any occurrence undermining legal principles and rendering rights ineffective is dealt with promptly, appropriately, and without procrastination. Thus, for the rule of law to endure alongside the lofty ideals of democracy, the chronic issue of delay must be promptly addressed with the appropriate remedy.^[28]

The observation made and recommendations provided in the 41st report of the Law Commission represent a distinctive perspective, illuminating a broader truth. According to the Commission’s findings, the incessant reassignment of sessions judges, resulting in partially concluded cases, exacerbates the backlog of cases. Consequently, newly assigned judges often find themselves compelled to rehear cases in order to reach a verdict. As a solution, the report advocates for conducting sessions trials on a daily basis and ensuring prompt adjudication within a brief timeframe. Additionally, the implementation of a structured transfer system is deemed necessary to mitigate such adversities. ^[29]

Advocating for the enhancement of judicial officers’ quality, the Law Commission favored assigning supervisory responsibility for a district to a High Court Judge. It recommended annual inspections of subordinate courts by a Sessions Judge or High Court judge to enhance performance quality. The High Court Judge overseeing a district must ensure the timely resolution of pending cases. Emphasis was placed on promptly considering High Court recommendations to augment judicial manpower, with retired judicial officers potentially enlisted to alleviate backlogs. Additionally, the appointment of two police officers to issue summonses and secure witness attendance was proposed. Advocacy for segregating police investigative agencies from law-and-order wings independently was also emphasized. Augmenting prosecution resources to meet demand was advised. While exploring various aspects, the Law Commission refrained from imposing fixed time frames for case disposal, deeming it impractical for every case brought before the Court.^[30]

Moreover, the Law Commission of India endorsed the directives issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause, a Society Registered against the Union of India.^[31] It is recommended that accused individuals in traffic offenses pending for more than two years due to the non-service of summons be discharged. In cases that are compoundable, where the trial has not commenced for over two years, the court shall discharge the accused and conclude the case. Similar recommendations were made in cases involving offenses punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, currently pending. Cases involving bailable and non-cognizable offenses, as well as offenses punishable with up to one year of imprisonment, if pending for one year without trial, shall be closed and the accused discharged. Additionally, it is advocated for effective coordination between the investigating agency and the prosecution. The commission also suggests avoiding granting adjournments on the designated date for the examination of witnesses. A suggestion is made for the appointment of a special magistrate to try criminal cases of minor nature. The service of summons and execution of warrants may be entrusted to a separate agency specifically designated for this purpose. Furthermore, periodic reviews of judge strength and pending cases are recommended.^[32]

• Introducing a system of public prosecutors guiding investigations

In both domestic and international legal frameworks, the state bears a duty to safeguard its populace. Consequently, each instance of criminal activity is viewed as a deficiency on the part of the state (government) in averting its occurrence.^[33] In fulfilling its obligation as guardian of society, the state perceives any transgression committed as an offense against itself, rather than solely against the individual victim. By assuming the task of prosecuting, governmental bodies aim to uphold public trust and confidence in the judicial framework. Acting as representatives of the state in criminal proceedings, public prosecutors are entrusted with the duty to facilitate a fair trial and to deter the abuse of legal proceedings, thereby precluding citizens from directly pursuing criminal cases for personal retribution. The Guidelines as facilitated by the United Nations on the Role of Prosecutors delineate the responsibilities of public prosecutors comprehensively, emphasizing their obligation to pursue justice through legitimate means, refraining from any improper tactics that could lead to an erroneous conviction. The concurrent existence of the right to start personal prosecution seems to coalesce somewhat uneasily with the established and widely recognized system of public prosecution.^[34]

Private prosecution, historically neglected as a constitutional safeguard, has not garnered the requisite acknowledgment of its significance. Rather, it has been perceived as a societal issue. Given the criminal justice system’s duty to uphold societal interests, it ought to prohibit private prosecution. The prevailing notion regarding private prosecution underscores its dubious utility, susceptible to misuse detrimental to the public good. Concerns arise over potential wrongful convictions and baseless prosecutions, exacerbated by the absence of accountability measures to mitigate such occurrences.^[35]

No public forum currently exists for the publication of the code of conduct, mechanism of complaints, resources allocation, or annual statistical reports. In cases where a victim expresses dissatisfaction with the public prosecutors’ performance, avenues for recourse are severely limited. Despite adherence to the prescribed complaint mechanism for government employees, timely resolution of complaints is not assured. Pradeep Kumar Roy’s question and concern regarding the victim’s freedom to select legal representation hold significant relevance given the current circumstances.^[36]

At present, the jurisdiction of private prosecutors remains constrained. The Supreme Court has articulated concerns that granting them unrestrained authority might lead to an unwavering pursuit of convictions, disregarding both fairness and the public good.^[37] In the case of Kedar Nath Sen v. Amulya Ratan Sanyal,^[38] the court emphasized the importance of the provision for private prosecution, designed to mitigate potential victim harassment. While its efficacy might be somewhat constrained by limited engagement, its influence remains palpable. The CrPC’s Section 302 delineates a provision enabling trial conduct by a private prosecutor, subject to Magistrate discretion. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in a pertinent ruling, underscored that such authorization should hinge on the premise that justice would be better served through private prosecution.^[39] While this outcome may appear questionable within the framework of England, Wales, and the United States, where the expenses associated with retaining private attorneys are prohibitively high for widespread engagement, this scenario could be perceived as feasible within the Indian context. Given the substantial influx of lawyers enrolling in the Bar Council daily, the associated costs remain comparatively modest.^[40]

2.5 Law Enforcement

As per the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), the police in India encounter a range of paradoxical situations and challenges related to personnel, procedures, organizations and even behaviors. The ‘Draft National Policy on Police Training’ highlights significant dimensions of transformation and hurdles concerning police structure: escalation in white-collar and organized crimes, shifts in economic landscapes, and socio-political instability resulting in public demonstrations, protests, and outbreaks of mass violence; social inequalities, irregularities, lawlessness, and tolerance, deteriorating moral standards, and erosion of ethical principles; increase of social legislation and the increasing weight of social obligations on the police leading to a gradual erosion of legal authority, widespread corruption, growing materialism across all echelons, increased police tension, and a assertive stance among police personnel themselves to address their issues.^[41] Nonetheless, the quantity of law enforcement officers has failed to keep pace with the increasing difficulties. From a statistical standpoint, India has 137.8 policemen per 100,000 individuals, which falls short of the UN’s recommended minimum of 220. This implies that each officer must oversee 761 citizens. The Civil Police, encompassing District Armed Police, had an ‘Actual’ strength of 1,281,317 in 2011, compared to a ‘Sanctioned’ strength of 1,660,953. Vacancies currently exceed 23 percent.^[42]

The advocated necessity for India, according to the Padmanabhaiah Committee, is a police force that is “highly motivated, skilled professionally, self-sufficient infrastructurally, and trained sophisticatedly.” A conscious and determined effort must be made to enhance the overall professionalism and capability of law enforcement. Proper emphasis needs to be placed on training, fostering advanced forensic abilities and resources, and delineating investigative duties from the daily tasks of public order maintenance. As rightly noted by the BPRD, the convoluted procedural framework often distances the police from society and fosters popular distrust. Reforms in behavior and attitude, both at the individual and departmental levels, are imperative to cultivate a police force that is professionally adept, individually respectful, functionally participatory, and morally resilient. Through modernization, the police force can evolve to operate progressively and behave democratically.^[43]

• Delays in the adjudication

In this sector of the criminal justice system, a huge issue arises from the substantial accumulation of cases owing to limitations in resources and human capital. As of mid-2012, the Supreme Court grappled with a backlog of 61,876 cases. Within this figure, the count of pending cases exceeding a year surged to 40,658, marking an escalation from 35,909.^[44] As of December 31, 2010, the combined count of unresolved matters in both the High Court and lower courts stood approximately at 3.2 crore, with roughly 85 lakhs of these cases surpassing a five-year threshold. In the year 2011, the total number of cases under scrutiny amounted to 3,146,326, encompassing both carryovers from preceding years and fresh filings.^[45]

As a consequence of these circumstances, significant delays arose in the adjudication process, leading to escalated litigation expenses, the compromise or attenuation of evidentiary reliability by the time of trial, and an erratic and fluctuating pattern in the verdicts finally rendered at trial. Such judicial incapacity to dispense timely justice poses a risk of diminishing the trust of local public legal system; the low rate of convictions fosters a perception that criminal activity represents a “low-risk, high-reward endeavor.” To address these issues, two strategies are proposed: the imperative need to augment the number of judges and, as recommended by the Supreme Court, the existing ratio of approximately thirteen judges for every million individuals should gradually escalate to a minimum of fifty judges for every million individuals. Concurrently operating autonomously, enhancing collaboration between law enforcement and prosecuting authorities could markedly ameliorate the situation.^[46]

Protecting the Rights of Accused Persons

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which delineates the foundational rights ensured within part III of the Constitution, mandates that not even a single person shall be ripped off of their individual freedom except in alignment with the traditional legal procedures. This constitutional provision underscores that the life and liberty of an individual can only be curtailed through lawful processes. Nevertheless, this provision, structured in a negative grammatical framework to allow for broader interpretation in safeguarding human rights, does not delineate the specific circumstances or authorities empowered to deprive an individual of their right to live and personal freedom. Chapter V of the Cr.P.C. outlines the legal framework governing the arrest and detention of individuals by law enforcement agencies. The conditions permitting warrantless arrests by police officers, magistrates, and private citizens are outlined in sections 41-44. When an arrest warrant is issued against an individual, they are duly informed of the grounds warranting their arrest. Challenges often arise in cases of warrantless arrests, where individuals may be detained without being apprised of the reasons for the restriction of their personal liberty. Such instances would contravene fundamental human rights. The Criminal Procedure Code enshrines certain rights for the accused, including the ^[47] Right to Know the Grounds of Arrest, the Right to be brought before a Magistrate without undue delay, the necessity for Judicial Scrutiny to extend detention beyond 24 hours^[48], and the entitlement of an arrested individual to consult with legal counsel from the moment of their arrest^[49].

3. Legislative Initiatives and Recent Developments

• The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023 (BNSS)

The legal structure in India stands on the verge of a significant overhaul with the imminent enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill (BNSS), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB). These bills, slated to supplant the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Evidence Act, respectively, mark a monumental shift in the nation’s legal framework. The BNSS, slated to supplant the CrPC, stands out for its extensive provisions, comprising 533 sections. This notable alteration highlights the legislative dedication to harmonizing legal procedures with contemporary demands. A thorough examination has resulted in modifications to 175 sections, the introduction of 8 new sections, and the elimination of 22 sections. This overhaul not only streamlines the legal statutes but also tackles outdated conventions that may have endured for decades. These modifications collectively demonstrate a proactive approach to the changing nature of crime, technological advancements, and a commitment to bolstering legal effectiveness. The impending enactment of BNSS, BNS, and BSB is positioned to redefine India’s legal landscape, ushering in a fresh era of precision, openness, and pertinence in the dispensation of justice.^[50]

• The Malimath Committee Report (2003)

The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, started the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, commonly known as the Malimath Committee, on 24 November 2000. This committee, chaired by Justice V.S. Malimath, a former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, and a former member of the National Human Rights Commission of India, submitted its report to the Ministry of Home Affairs in March 2003. While the Malimath Committee put forth numerous recommendations for criminal justice reforms, this chapter focuses solely on examining and discussing three crucial aspects of the committee’s deliberations regarding victims of crime.^[51]

• Victim involvement in trial and investigation: According to the Malimath Committee, “The victim, not being a party, has a negligible role in the trial, save for providing testimony as a witness.”^[52]
• (ii) Rights pertaining to Victims: In instances where the victim has deceased, it is advised with strong emphasis that either their dependent, next of kin, or a recognized NGO, as authorized by the Court, should be included as a party.”^[53]
• Compensation for Victims: The Malimath Committee observed that “Victim compensation, a duty of the State in all grave offenses, irrespective of the apprehension of the offender, their conviction, or acquittal, should be legislated separately by Parliament.”^[54]

4. Challenges in Implementing Reforms

4.1 Limitation on the power of the arrest

The Criminal Procedure Code of 1908 grants extensive powers regarding arrest, primarily to law enforcement, delineated in Sections 41, 42, and 151 of the code. Instances abound illustrating the misuse of these powers by police officers. Hence, the arrest procedure’s foundation must derive from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Introducing Section 436-A in the Cr.P.C., addressing the “Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained,” aims to safeguard the human rights of the arrested individual. Evidently, this section empowers magistrates to uphold human rights effectively at any stage of inquiry.^[55]

4.2 Limitation on the adjournment of the cases

In contemporary times, the prevailing norm entails granting adjournments in cases, marking a shift from occasional occurrence to customary practice. This trend significantly contributes to the delay in case resolution. Despite the explicit prohibition against adjourning proceedings more than three times (outlined in Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908), this restriction is often overlooked in practice. Hence, it is imperative for all courts to uphold these provisions diligently to expedite case disposal.^[56]

4.3 Violation of the right’s of the prisoners:

The condition of prisoners within India remained dismal. Law enforcement authorities were accountable for widespread breaches of human rights, including alleged encounters resulting in arbitrary deprivation of life, deaths while in custody, and indiscriminate utilization of firearms. According to the NCBI, eight individuals perished in custody, and 42 civilians lost their lives in police shootings in 2005. Additionally, at least 87 people were reportedly killed in alleged encounters between January and March 2005 alone, with figures reaching 238 in 2004 and 214 in 2003. Hence, it is incumbent upon all courts to conduct regular and surprise visits to prisons to ensure humane conditions for inmates.^[57]

5. Conclusion

Ethical behavior constitutes a fundamental aspect of investigative professionalism. Thus, prior to entertaining accusations of misconduct or prejudice, it is imperative and a burdensome obligation of the judiciary to demand not only the articulation of specific and precise charges of personal enmity against the Investigating Officer at the onset of the inquiry but also to require their substantiation and verification from the evidence and circumstances to the satisfaction of the judiciary. Malicious intent in legal terms might be deduced from the commission of an unjustified wrongful act intentionally, devoid of any valid rationale or justification, or lacking a reasonable correlation with the intended purpose of the statutory authority’s exercise.^[58]

Our assessment of relationships between police and communities serves as a stand-in for community policing, with these relationships at the core and as the guiding principle. This study illustrates the expansion of community policing initiatives by Indian law enforcement agencies nationwide, highlighting the crucial role of public satisfaction with police services. Insights from this research suggest that police administrators should heed the findings and explore avenues to enhance their professional image, integrity, and accountability. Of paramount importance is their communication with the public regarding their primary objectives, emphasizing police values, and executing their duties in accordance with principles such as the rule of law, human rights protection, and the tenets of democratic policing.^[59]

Suggestions crucial for ensuring Criminal Justice Reform entail the following:

1. Periodical inspection of Courts becomes imperative.
2. The current scenario presents numerous pending cases in courts; however, reliable data is lacking. Additionally, annual administration reports concerning case pendency remain unpublished by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
3. Another issue arises with the requirement of governmental sanction (Sec.197) before prosecuting public servants under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. This provision significantly hampers the exercise of power under Section 166 and warrants withdrawal. Notably, the National Police Commission 1979-1981, in its 8th Report, advocated for the repeal of Sec. 132 and 197 of the Cr.P.C.
4. It’s disconcerting that many existing laws are archaic, with prescribed punishments often nominal, failing to deter crime effectively. For instance, the Police Act of 1861 exemplifies this inadequacy.
5. Assigning cases based on individuals’ specialization emerges as a necessity. The Malimath Committee (November 24, 2000) recommended this approach, highlighting that neglecting specialization leads to delays in case resolutions.

The imperative lies in diminishing political sway, as the Police Act of 1861 entrusts the oversight of law enforcement directly to the political authority, namely the state government. Presently, the incumbent Head of Police (Director General/ Inspector General) serves at the discretion of the Chief Minister, subject to dismissal without cause at any juncture. This circumstance has fostered extensive politicization within the police force.^[60]

Commercially speaking, India’s position on the indicator for contract enforcement remains a concern, with a slight improvement seen as it moved from rank 164 to 163 in the latest Ease of Doing Business (EODB) report by the World Bank in 2018. The report highlights persistent challenges in enforcing contracts, impacting economic activity due to delays and backlog within the legal system. In addition to proposed solutions outlined in the paper, urgent government action is required to address this issue before it escalates beyond manageable levels. It is imperative that appropriate remedial measures are promptly implemented to mitigate the situation.^[61]

---

[1] Pranav Kumar, ‘Role of Police in Criminal Trial in India: A Critical’ [2022] SVPNPA 71

[2] Richard Thilagaraj, ‘Criminal justice system in India’ (2012) Handbook of Asian criminology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 199-211

[3] Rajesh Singh and Rekha Singh, ‘Criminal Justice System In India: Need For Systematic Changes’ [1937] Research Chronicler 8

[4] Rajesh Singh and Rekha Singh, ‘Criminal Justice System In India: Need For Systematic Changes’ [1937] Research Chronicler 8

[5] Reshma Umair, ‘Development of Criminal Law in India’ 10th International Conference on Recent Development in Engineering Science, Humanities and Management. 2017.

[6] Murugesan Srinivasan and Mathew Jane Eyre, ‘Victims and the criminal justice system in India: Need for a paradigm shift in the justice system’ [2007] Temida 10, 51-62

[7] Murugesan Srinivasan and Mathew Jane Eyre, ‘Victims and the criminal justice system in India: Need for a paradigm shift in the justice system’ [2007] Temida 10, 51-62

[8] Ifa Sirrhu Binti Samsudin, Ramalinggam Rajamanickam and Rohaida Binti Nordin, ‘Constitutional Right To Be Informed To An Arrested Person For Fair And Effective Investigation: Comparative Study Between Malaysia And India’ [2021] TJCIBG 27, 3829-3845

[9] Abhinav Sekhri, ‘Pendency in the Indian Criminal Process: A Creature of Crisis or Flawed Design?’ [2019] SLR 15, 1

[10] Abhinav Sekhri, ‘Pendency in the Indian Criminal Process: A Creature of Crisis or Flawed Design?’ [2019] SLR 15, 1

[11] Bhagwan Gawali and Dipa Dube, ‘Law and Process of Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Perspectives’ [2013] IJHRL 10, 51-78

[12] Abhishek Sharma, ‘A Study on Crisis in Indian Judiciary: An Analysis of the Periodic Syndrome of Delay, Pendency and Arrears’ [2020] SA 18, 42

[13] Surya Prakash B.S , Examining the funding deficit of Judiciary [15 Dec 2016] available at https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/b1DNafTIUNGtzY3IR8gtbI/Examining-the-funding-deficit-of-the-judiciary.html

[14] Rattan Singh, ‘Narcoanalysis: A Volcano in Criminal Investigation System’ [2010] CrLJ

[15] Selvi v State of Karnataka [1975] AIR 1974

[16] Swati Pandey, ‘Aspect of Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation: Admissibility in the Indian legal System’ [2022] Thesis School of Legal Studies, BBDU

[17] Divyanshi Pathak, ‘Reforms in Police Investigation and Prosecution’ [2019] IJLMH 2, 16

[18] Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy, Evidence Based Policing -The basic Study Guide, available at http://cebcp.org/wpcontent/evidence-based-policing/EBP-Guide.pdf

[19] Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy, Evidence Based Policing -The basic Study Guide, available at http://cebcp.org/wpcontent/evidence-based-policing/EBP-Guide.pdf

[20] Divyanshi Pathak, ‘Reforms in Police Investigation and Prosecution’ [2019] IJLMH 2, 16

[21] Gowsia Khan and Sheeba Ahad, ‘Role of Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation: Admissibility in Indian Legal System and Future Perspective’ [2018] IJARSE 7, 220-34

[22] Prapti Kothari, ‘Exploring the Role of Forensic Science in Indian Criminal Justice System’ [2023] SSRN 4565177

[23] Dharam Dev Yadav v State of Uttar [2014] 2014 AIR SCW 2253

[24] VR Dinkar, ‘Forensic scientific evidence: problems and pitfalls in India’ [2015] IJFSP 79–84

[25] SN Sharma, ‘Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial- The Judicial Experimentation’ [1996] Journal Of Indian Law Institute 38, 236

[26] Law Commission of India, 14th Report on Reforms of Judicial Administration, Vol. I, 129 (Ministry of Law, Government of India, 1958)

[27] Noor Mohammed v Jethanand, [2013] 5 SCC 202

[28] Neon Laboratories Ltd v Medical Technologies Ltd [2015] SC 905

[29] Law Commission of India, 41th Report on Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. I, 217 (Ministry of Law, Government of India, 1969)

[30] Law Commission of India, 154th Report on The Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 90-116 (Ministry of Law, Government of India, 1996)

[31] Registered Society v Union of India [1996] 4 SCC 33

[32] Anto, Albin and K Balakrishnan, ‘Analysing the delay, pendency and backlog of criminal matters in India In the light of covid-19 with special reference to Kerala: an empirical study.’ [2021] Thesis, National University of Advanced Legal Studies

[33] Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran, ‘International Human Rights Law’ ch 6 (2nd ed. 2014)

[34] LH Leigh, ‘Private Prosecutions and Diversionary Justice’ [2007] CLR 289

[35] Sharma, Anupama, ‘Public prosecutors, victims and the expectation gap: An analysis of Indian jurisdiction’ [2017] SLR 13, 87

[36] Pradeep Kumar Roy, ‘Why not the Right to prosecute by a lawyer of victim’s own choice?’ [1992] Crimes 897

[37] Shiv Kumar v Hukam Chand [1999] 7 SCC 467

[38] Kedar Nath Sen v Amulya Ratan Sanyal [1941] SCC

[39] JK International v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2001] 3 SCC 462

[40] Sharma, Anupama, ‘Public prosecutors, victims and the expectation gap: An analysis of Indian jurisdiction’ [2017] SLR 13, 87

[41] Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Police Research and Development, Draft National Policy on Police Training, 14 November 2006, available at http://bprd.nic.in/index2.asp?slid=361&sublinkid=153&lang=1 , accessed on 06 November 2012.

[42] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2009 (New Delhi: NCRB, 2010), p. 167

[43] N Manoharan N, ‘Reforming the Criminal Justice System’ February 8 , 2013 Vivekananda International Foundation

[44] Kian Ganz, “Supreme Court’s battle against backlog in cases,” Live Mint, 07 June 2012

[45] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2011 (New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau, 2011), Chapter 4

[46] RK Raghavan, ‘Reforming criminal justice systems,’ [2003] Frontline 20, 18-31

[47] Sood, Jyoti Dogra, ‘Rights of the Accused and Constitutional Protection in Case of Arrest in India’ [2008] ALR 5

[48] KN Chandrasekharan Pillai, ‘Criminal Procedure’ [2000] ASIL 162

[49] Sundar Singh v Emperor [1983] 32 Cri.LJ 339

[50] Negi Advocate, Chitranjali, ‘Legal Evolution in India: Transitioning from Colonial Legacies to New Frontiers-An In-depth Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill in 2023’ [2023] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill

[51] K Jaishankar, P Madhava Soma Sundaram and Debarati Halder, ‘Chapter Five Malimath Committee And Crime Victims: Resurrecting The Forgotten Voices Of The Indian Criminal Justice SYSTEM’ [2008] SSRN 1727197, 112

[52] Government of India, 2003, p. 35

[53] Government of India, 2003, p. 36

[54] Government of India, 2003, p. 271

[55] Udita Goel,  “Criminal justice reforms in India.” [2021] Available at SSRN 3872956 

[56] Udita Goel,  “Criminal justice reforms in India.” [2021] Available at SSRN 3872956 

[57] Udita Goel,  “Criminal justice reforms in India.” [2021] Available at SSRN 3872956 

[58] Ifa Sirrhu Binti Samsudin, Ramalinggam Rajamanickam and Rohaida Binti Nordin, ‘Constitutional Right To Be Informed To An Arrested Person For Fair And Effective Investigation: Comparative Study Between Malaysia And India’ [2021] TJCIBG 27, 3829-3845

[59] Mahesh K Nalla and Manish Madan, ‘Determinants of citizens’ perceptions of police–community cooperation in India: Implications for community policing’ [2012] AJC 7, 277-294

[60] Udita Goel,  “Criminal justice reforms in India.” [2021] Available at SSRN 3872956 

[61] Abhishek Sharma, ‘A Study on Crisis in Indian Judiciary: An Analysis of the Periodic Syndrome of Delay, Pendency and Arrears’ [2020] SA 18, 42

1 Punishments (Ch II)
1.1 Punishments
IPC (S 53) – The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are—
(a) Death;
(b) Imprisonment for life
(c) Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:—
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
(2) Simple;
(d) Forfeiture of property
(e) Fine.
BNS (S 4) – The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Sanhita are—
(a) Death;
(b) Imprisonment for life; that is to say, imprisonment for remainder of a person’s natural life
(c) Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely: —
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
(2) Simple;
(d) Forfeiture of property;
(e) Fine;
(f) Community Service.
What Change – There is Change in provision number. In BNS Life Imprisonment has been further explained as Imprisonment for remainder of a person’s natural life and one more punishment has been added which is Community Service.
1.2 Construction of reference to transportation
IPC (S 53A) – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), any reference to “transportation for life” in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument or order having effect by virtue of any such law or of any enactment repealed shall be construed as a reference to “imprisonment for life”. (2) In every case in which a sentence of transportation for a term has been passed before the commencement of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 5 [1955 (26 of 1955)], the offender shall be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term. (3) Any reference to transportation for a term or to transportation for any shorter term (by whatever name called) in any other law for the time being in force shall be deemed to have been omitted. (4) Any reference to “transportation” in any other law for the time being in force shall,— (a) if the expression means transportation for life, be construed as a reference to imprisonment for life; (b) if the expression means transportation for any shorter term, be deemed to have been omitted.
What Change – This provision from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been repealed in BNS.
1.3 Commutation of sentence
IPC (S 54 – S 55A) – In every case in which sentence of,–– (a) death has been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for any other punishment provided by this code (b) imprisonment for life has been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
BNS (S 5)- The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute any punishment under this Sanhita to any other punishment in accordance with section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
What Change – There is change in provision number .Sec 54, 55,55A of IPC have been merged under Sec 5 of BNS that provides punishment as per Sec 474 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.
1.4 Fractions and terms of punishment
IPC (S 57) -—In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.
BNS (S 6) – In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided.
What Change-There is change in provison number. In BNS there is addition of a phrase which says twenty years unless otherwise provided.
1.5 Sentence may be wholly or partly rigorous or simple
IPC (S 60) -In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
BNS (S 7) – This section also lays down the same as in S60 of IPC.
What Change –There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
1.6 Amount of fine, liability in default etc.
IPC (S 63- S70) –
S63- Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
S64-In every case of an offence – punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment; and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
S65- The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
S66-The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
S67-If the offence be punishable with fine only, [the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and] the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale, that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed one hundred rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.
S68-The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.
S69-If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.
S70-The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.
BNS (S 8) –
(4) The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine or in default of community service may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
(5) If the offence is punishable with fine or community service, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine or in default of community service shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine or in default of community service, shall not exceed,—
(a) two months when the amount of the fine does not exceed five thousand rupees;
(b) four months when the amount of the fine does not exceed ten thousand rupees; and for a term exceeding one year in any other case.
What Change – There is a change in provision number Sec 63-70 have been merged under Sec 8 of BNS. In BNS the term community service has been added along with fine. In default of payment of fine or in default of community service, imprisonment shall not exceed two months in case the fine does not exceed five thousand rupees; four months in case fine does not exceed ten thousand rupees and for one year in any other case.
1.7 Limit of punishment
IPC (S 71) – It clearly pin points that if an offender commits several offences, then he shall be punished with enhanced punishment than that laid down for any one such offence. The 2nd part of the discussing section enumerates that if there are several parts of the same offence then the punishment shall be awardable to one such offence. It also exhaustively lays down that if the offender commits several offences but altogether constitutes another single offence then the court should not punish the offender with more severe punishment than that which is awardable in any such constituting offence.
BNS (S 9) – This section also lays down the same as in S71 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
1.8 Punishment of person guilty of several offences
IPC (S 72) – Section 72, of IPC lays down that if there are several allegations of offences against an offender but it is doubtful which exact offence has been committed, then the court shall award the lowest punishment provided for any of the several offences if punishment are different for all of the offences.
BNS (S 10) – This section also lays down the same as in S72 of IPC.
What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
1.9 Solitary confinement
IPC (S73) – Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Sanhita the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, namely:— (a) a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months; (b) a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year; (c) a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
BNS (S 11) – This section also lays down the same as in S73 of IPC.
What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
1.10 Limit of solitary confinement
IPC (S 74) – In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods; and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.
BNS (S 12) – This section also lays down the same as in S74 of IPC.
What Change-. There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
1.11 Enhanced punishment for certain offences
IPC (S 75) – Whoever, having been convicted,— (a) by a Court in 3 [India], of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
BNS (S 13) – Whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chapter X or Chapter XVII of this Sanhita with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

2. Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy and Attempt (Ch. IV)
   2.1 ABETMENT
   2.1.1 Punishment of Abetment
   IPC (S 109) – This section does not establish particular penalties for aiding or the one providing assistance but prescribes identical consequences as those assigned to the main wrongdoer engaging in the offense; these penalties are specified for the aider in that specific wrongdoing. To qualify as an abettor in a given offense, an individual must have performed any one of three actions: investigation, assistance, or involvement in a plot.
   BNS (S49) – This section also lays down the same as in S109 of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   2.1.2 Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor
   IPC (S110) – In this context, the abettor is likewise subject to the identical penalty as the principal offender, even if the abettor had carried out the action with a distinct intention or possessed different knowledge compared to that of the offender.
   BNS (S50) – This section also lays down the same as in S110 of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

2.1.3 Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with a different intention from that of abettor
IPC (S111) – If an act is abetted, resulting in a different act, the abettor is responsible for the executed act in the same manner and to the same extent as if they had directly abetted it. Moreover, it is essential to consider that the performed act was a probable consequence of the abetment and was carried out under the influence of the instigation or with the assistance and in pursuit of the conspiracy that constituted the abetment.
BNS (S51) – This section also lays down the same as in S111 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
2.1.4 Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done
IPC (S 112) – The abettor incurs liability for both the act of abetment and the offenses committed by the principal offender. This provision serves as a continuation of the preceding section.
BNS (S52) – This section also lays down the same as in S112 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
2.1.5 Liability of an abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor
IPC (S113) – If the resulting effect, stemming from an act carried out under instigation, was reasonably likely and within the knowledge of the abettor, the abettor shall be penalized for the offense with an equivalent punishment.
BNS (S53) – This section also lays down the same as in S113 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

2.1.6 Abettor present when offence is committed
IPC (S114) – If the abettor is present during the commission of the offense, but the actual perpetrator is someone other than the abettor, the abettor shall be subject to the same punishment as if they had committed the act themselves.
BNS (S54) – This section also lays down the same as in S114 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
2.1.7 Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
IPC (S115) – In case someone assists in the commission of an offense that warrants either death or life imprisonment, and the individual being assisted doesn’t actually carry out the offense, the aider will face imprisonment for a duration of up to seven years. Additionally, a fine may be imposed. If harm results from the act, the aider will be subject to imprisonment for a period of up to fourteen years, along with potential additional penalties.
BNS (S55) –This section also lays down the same as in S115 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
2.1.8 Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment if offence is not committed
IPC (S116):- In case an individual aids, and the punishable act involves imprisonment, and said act does not occur due to said assistance, the one aiding will face imprisonment, the duration of which may reach one fourth of the maximum penalty for the particular offense, or a fine, or both. If the one aiding or the aided person is a public servant obligated to prevent the offense, the aiding party will be subject to imprisonment, up to one half of the maximum term for the offense, or a specified fine, or both.
BNS (S56) – This section also lays down the same as in S116 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

2.1.9 Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons
IPC (S 117) – Anyone aiding in the perpetration of a crime by the general populace or by a group exceeding ten individuals shall face penalties, including incarceration for a duration of up to three years, a monetary fine, or a combination of both.
BNS (S57) – Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public or by a class of persons more than ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or fine or both.
What Change-There is a change in provision number. The punishment has been enhanced from 3 years to 7 years.
2.1.10 Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent IPC(S119) – In case the abettor, a public servant responsible for preventing any offense, unintentionally aids in the commission of said offense by concealing any act or through an unlawful omission, the presence of the intention to commit such offense, or by making knowingly false representations of such intention, they will, upon the commission of the offense, face penalties involving imprisonment, ranging up to half of the maximum term for said offense, or a fine as specified for the offense, or both. If the offense being abetted carries a punishment of death or life imprisonment, the abettor will face imprisonment, either type, for up to a maximum of ten years. If the abetted offense is not committed, the abettor will be penalized with imprisonment, not exceeding one-fourth of the longest term prescribed for the offense, or a fine as specified, or both.
BNS (S59) – This section also lays down the same as in S119 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
2.1.11 Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
IPC (S120) – If a person willingly conceals a scheme to commit an offense or possesses the understanding that such concealment may result in an offense through any act or unlawful omission, or provides a false representation knowingly about such a plan, the individual, upon the commission of the offense, may receive imprisonment according to the designated penalty for the offense, up to one-fourth of the longest imprisonment term. In the absence of the offense, the imprisonment may extend to one-eighth of the maximum term. Alternatively, the person may face a fine in accordance with the offense or a combination of both penalties.
BNS (S60) – This section also lays down the same as in S120 OF IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

3. Offences against Woman and Child (Ch.V)
   3.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES
   3.1.1 Punishment for Rape:
   IPC [S 376(1) and 376(2)] – Punishment for rape shall be rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years but which may extend to Life Imprisonment.
   BNS (S 64) – This section also lays down the same as in S376 of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   3.1.2 Punishment for Rape in certain cases:
   IPC [S 376(3) and 376AB] – Rape on women under the age of 16 must result in harsh imprisonment for at least 20 years, but may extend to Life Imprisonment, which is incarceration for the balance of that person’s natural life plus a fine. Punishment for rape on women under 12 years of age should be rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years, but which may extend to Life Imprisonment, which shall imply imprisonment for the balance of that person’s natural life, with fine or death.
   BNS (S 65) – Rape against women under the age of 18 shall result in harsh imprisonment for at least 20 years, but may extend to Life Imprisonment, which is incarceration for the balance of that person’s natural life, as well as a fine or death.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but there is a visual shift in the provision. Instead of 16 or 12 years of age, BNS requires 18 years, but the penalty remains the same. As a result, the IPC portions were consolidated.
   3.1.3 Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim:
   IPC (S 376A) – If a person commits rape and causes an injury that kills or puts the woman in a persistent vegetative state, the person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for at least twenty years, but which may be extended to imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, or death.
   BNS (S 66) – This section also lays down the same as in S 376A of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   3.1.4 Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation:
   IPC (S 376B)- If a person has sexual intercourse with his own wife while living apart without her agreement, he shall be penalized with imprisonment for at least two years but up to seven years, as well as a fine.
   BNS (67) – This section also lays down the same as in S 376B of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   3.1.5 Sexual intercourse by a person in authority:
   IPC (S 376C)- In instances where a person in a position of authority exploits their power to coerce or entice a woman under their care into engaging in sexual activity with them, resulting in sexual intercourse that does not meet the criteria for rape, the individual will face strict imprisonment, either of a description, for a duration of no less than five years, yet potentially up to ten years. Additionally, they will be subject to a fine.
   BNS (S 68) – This section also lays down the same as in S 376C of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   3.1.10 Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc (Sec 69) –
   This is new section that has been inserted. Whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
   3.1.11 Gang Rape:
   IPC (S 376D, 376DA, 376DB)- If a woman is raped by one or more individuals in furtherance of a common aim, then each of those offenders shall be punished with harsh imprisonment up to twenty years, but which may extend to life, which shall imply imprisonment for the balance of that person’s natural life, and a fine.
   If a woman under the age of sixteen is raped by one or more people with a common aim, each of those people will be sentenced to Life Imprisonment, which means imprisonment for the rest of that person’s natural life, as well as a fine.
   If a woman under the age of twelve is raped by one or more people with a common aim, each of those people shall be sentenced to Life Imprisonment, which means imprisonment for the rest of that person’s natural life, as well as a fine or death.
   BNS (S 70) – Under this provision all the above three sections have been merged and instead of sixteen and twelve years, it is eighteen years.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number. All three of the IPC provisions listed above have been consolidated. Under S 70 of the BNS, the age limit is eighteen years old rather than sixteen or twelve. The punishment stays the same.
   3.1.12 Punishment for repeat offenders:
   IPC (S 376E) – A repeat offender shall be punished with life imprisonment, which means imprisonment for the duration of that person’s natural life, or with death.
   BNS (S 71) – This section also lays down the same as in S 376E.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
4. Offences Affecting the Human Body (Ch. VI)
5. Offences against The State (Ch.VII)
   5.1 Waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war against the Government of India
   IPC (S 121) – Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
   BNS (S 147) – This section also lays down the same as in S121 of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   5.2 Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by S121 IPC and S147 BNS
   IPC (S 121A) – Whoever within or without India conspires to commit any of the offences punishable by section 121, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   BNS (S 148) – Whoever within or without and beyond India conspires to commit any of the offences punishable by section 147, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number .In BNS there is insertion of the term “beyond India”.

5.3 Collecting arms etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India
IPC (S 122) – Whoever collects men, arms or ammunitions or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment not exceeding ten years, and shall be liable to fine.
BNS (S 149) – This section also lays down the same as in S122 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.4 Concealing with intent to facilitate designs to wage war
IPC (S123) – Whoever by any act or by any illegal omission conceals the existence of a design to wage war against the Government of India, intending by such concealment to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that such concealment will facilitate the waging of such war shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 150) – This section also lays down the same as in S123 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.5 Assaulting Presiding, Governor etc. with intent to compel or restrain exercise of any lawful power
IPC (S 124) – Whoever with the intention of inducing or compelling the President of India or Governor of any State, to exercise or refrain from exercising in any manner any of the lawful powers of such President or Governor, assaults or wrongfully restrains or attempts wrongfully to restrain or overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts so to overawe, such President or Governor shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 151) – This section also lays down the same as in S124 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.6 Sedition
IPC (S 124-A) – Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
BNS – This provision from the IPC have been deleted from the BNS.
5.7 Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
BNS(S152)- This is a new provision that has been added in BNS. Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.––Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section do not constitute an offence under this section.
5.8 Committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the Government
IPC (S 126) – Whoever commits depredation or makes preparation to commit depredation on the territories of any alliance or at peace with the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine and to forfeiture of any property used or intended to be used in committing such depredation, or acquired by such depredation.
BNS (S 154) – Whoever commits depredation, or makes preparations to commit depredation, on the territories of any foreign State at peace with the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and to forfeiture of any property used or intended to be used in committing such depredation, or acquired by such depredation.
What Change-There is a change in provision number. In BNS there is insertion of this phrase “territories of any foreign State at peace with the Government of India”.
5.9 Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in Section in 125 and 126
IPC (S 127) – Whoever receives any property knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in sections 125 and 126, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and to forfeiture of the property so received.
BNS (S 155) – This section also lays down the same as in S127 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.10 Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or of war to escape
IPC (S128) – Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war, voluntarily allows such prisoner to escape from any place in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 156) – This section also lays down the same as in S128 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.11 Public servant negligent by suffering such prisoner to escape
IPC (S 129) – Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war, negligently suffers such prisoner to escape from any place of confinement in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 157) – This section also lays down the same as in S129 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
5.12 Aiding escape of rescuing or harboring such prisoner
IPC (S 130) – Whoever knowingly aids or assists any state prisoner or prisoner of war in escaping from lawful custody, or rescues or attempts to rescue any such prisoner, or harbours or conceals any such prisoner who has escaped from lawful custody or offers or attempts to offer any resistance to the recapture of such prisoner shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 158) – This section also lays down the same as in S130 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

6. Of Offences Relating To The Army, Navy And Air Force (Ch.VIII):
   6.1 Abetting mutiny or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty
   IPC (S 131) – Any person who abets or attempts to abet or seduces the commission of any mutiny by any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in any army, navy or air force of the Government of India shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
   BNS (S 159) – This section also lays down the same as in S131 of IPC.
   What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

6.2 Abetment of Mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof
IPC (S132) – This section provides for enhanced punishment which is death or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine if the mutiny abetted is committed in pursuance to that.
BNS (S 160) – This section also lays down the same as in S132 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
6.3 Abetment of assault by solider, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when in office
IPC (S133) – – If any officer, solider or airmen of the government of India abets an assault to any senior officer while he is execution his duty of his officer then person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine abetment of such assault if assault.
BNS (S 161) – This section also lays down the same as in S133 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
6.4 Abetment of such assault if such assault is committed
IPC (S134) – If the assault abetted under the former section is executed then the punishment is enhanced that is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 162) – This section also lays down the same as in S134 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

6.5 Abetment of desertion of soldier, sailor or airman
IPC (S135) – Whoever, abets the desertion of any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 163) – This section also lays down the same as in S135 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
6.6 Harboring deserter
IPC (S136) – – If any officer ,solider, airman of the government of India is a deserters and any person harbours that deserter then he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The word ‘harbour’ has been defined under Sec 52 of the code which means helping to conceal a deserter to prevent his apprehension however that it is an exception and is not punishable.
Exception – This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by a wife to her husband.
BNS (S 164) – Whoever, except as hereinafter excepted, knowing or having reason to believe that an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, has deserted, harbours such officer, soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. Exception- This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the spouse of the deserter.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and In BNS there is substitution of this “harbour is given by a wife to her husband” by the “harbour is given by the spouse of the deserter”.

6.7 Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master
IPC (S137) – The master of the merchant vessel who is in charge of the ship shall be punished with a penalty not exceeding rupees five hundred if any officer, sailor or airman conceals himself on board of the said vessel even if the master was ignorant of such fact.
BNS (S 165) – The master or person in charge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India is concealed, shall, though ignorant of such concealment, be liable to a penalty not exceeding three thousand rupees, if he might have known of such concealment but for some neglect of his duty as such master or person in charge, or but for some want of discipline on board of the vessel.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and the penalty has been enhanced from 500 rupees to 3,000 rupees.
6.8 Abetment of act of insubordination by soldier, sailor or airman
IPC (S138) – If any person abets the act of insubordination by any officer, soldier, sailor or airman and the insubordination takes place in consequence of that abetment, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
BNS (S 166) – Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and the punishment has been enhanced from 6 months to 2 years.
6.9 Wearing garb or carrying taken by soldier sailor or airman
IPC (S140) – Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Military, Naval or Air service of the Government of India, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
BNS (S168) – Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Naval or Air service of the Government of India, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and the fine has been enhanced from 500 rupees to 2,000 rupees and the term Military has been replaced by Army.

7. Of Offences Relating To Elections (Ch IX)
   7.1 Punishment for bribery
   IPC (S171B) :- They offence of bribery as explained and defined under section 171B if committed then he or she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
   Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only ‘Treating’ shall be punished with fine only. ‘Treating’ has been explained in the explanation which means bribery in the form of gratification of food, drink, entertainment or provision.
   BNS (S 170) – This section also lays down the same as in S 171B of IPC.
   What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   7.2 Punishment for undue influence
   IPC (S171F):- Undue influence in election as defined under sec 171C if committed by any person then he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
   BNS (S 174) – This section also lays down the same as in S 171F of IPC.
   What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   7.3 False statement in connection with an election
   IPC (S171G) – If any person intends to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the person character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.
   BNS (S 175) – This section also lays down the same as in S 171G of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
   7.4 Illegal payments in connection with an election
   IPC (S171H) – If any person without general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. It is further provided that if any such expense was incurred by any person not exceeding ten rupees then without authority and obtains approval in writing from the candidate within ten days of such approval then it shall not be considered as illegal payment.
   BNS (S 176) – Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
   Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 10,000 rupees.
   7.5 Failure to keep election accounts
   IPC (S171 I) – If any person who is authorized to maintain election accounts fails or does not keep such account then he shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.
   BNS (S 177) – Whoever being required by any law for the time being in force or any rule having the force of law to keep accounts of expenses incurred at or in connection with an election fails to keep such accounts shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
   What Change – There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.
8. Of Offences Relating To Coin, Currency-Notes, Bank-Notes, And Government Stamps (Ch X):
   These sections make counterfeiting coins, or fraudulently using government stamps as punishable offences. This chapter provides mostly imprisonment of either description and as fine or with both. Under this chapter also the upper limit of punishment is mentioned and according to the gravity of the offence the punishment is awarded.
   8.1 Counterfeiting coin, government stamps, currency-notes or bank-notes
   IPC (S 230 – S 232, S 246- S 249, S 255, S 489A) –(1) Coin is metal used for the time being as money, and stamped and issued by the authority of some State or Sovereign Power in order to be so used. Indian coin.—Indian coin is metal stamped and issued by the authority of the Government of India in order to be used as money; and metal which has been so stamped and issued shall continue to be Indian coin for the purposes of this Chapter, notwithstanding that it may have ceased to be used as money.
   (2) Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (3) Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting Indian coin, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (4) Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly performs on any coin any operation which diminishes the weight or alters the composition of that coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (5) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly performs on 3 [any Indian coin] any operation which diminishes the weight or alters the composition of that coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (6) Whoever performs on any coin any operation which alters the appearance of that coin, with the intention that the said coin shall pass as a coin of a different description, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (7) Whoever performs on 1 [any Indian coin] any operation which alters the appearance of that coin, with the intention that the said coin shall pass as a coin of a different description, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (8) Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   (9) Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   BNS (S 178) – Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any coin, stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
   (1) the expression “bank-note” means a promissory note or engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any part of the world, or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power, and intended to be used as equivalent to, or as a substitute for money;
   (2) “coin” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 2 of the Coinage Act, 2011 and includes metal used for the time being as money and is stamped and issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power intended to be so used;
   (3) a person commits the offence of “counterfeiting Government stamp” who counterfeits by causing a genuine stamp of one denomination to appear like a genuine stamp of a different denomination;
   (4) a person commits the offence of counterfeiting coin who intending to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced, causes a genuine coin to appear like a different coin; and
   (5) the offence of “counterfeiting coin” includes diminishing the weight or alteration of the composition, or alteration of the appearance of the coin.
   What Change – There is a change in provison number .Sec 230-232, 246-249,255,489A of IPC have been consolidated under Sec 178 of BNS. Punishment has been enhanced to Life Imprisonment or upto 10 years and fine.
   8.2 Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit coin, Government stamp, currency-notes or bank notes
   IPC (S 250, S 251, S 258, S 260, S 489B) – These sections of the Indian Penal Code address various offenses related to counterfeit currency and stamps. Section 250 pertains to the delivery of altered coins with knowledge of the offense, prescribing imprisonment for up to five years and a fine. Section 251 deals specifically with Indian coins, imposing harsher penalties of imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine for similar offenses. Section 258 targets the sale of counterfeit government stamps, punishing offenders with imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine. Section 260 addresses the use of counterfeit government stamps, with penalties including imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, or both. Lastly, Section 489B addresses the use of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, prescribing imprisonment for life or up to ten years, along with a fine. These provisions underscore the seriousness with which the law treats offenses related to counterfeit currency and stamps, aiming to safeguard the integrity of financial transactions and government revenue.
   BNS (S 179) Whoever sells or delivers to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit coin, stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number. Sec 250,251,258,260,489B of IPC have been consolidated under Sec 179 BNS.
   8.3 Of offences relating to Weight & Measures (XIII)
   IPC (S 264 to S 267) – This chapter incorporates S264 to 267. Fraudulent use of instruments used for weighing or fraudulent use of weights and measures or possession of such false things has been made punishable under these sections. The punishments are also imprisonment of either description for at the most one year and with fine or with both.
   BNS – The provisions from the IPC have been repealed from the BNS.
9. Of Offences Against The Public Tranquillity (Ch. XI):
   9.1 Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse
   IPC (S 145) – If any person joins any unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon or joins any assembly which has been commanded to disperse shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
   BNS [S189 (3)] – This section also lays down the same as in S 145 of IPC.
   What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

9.2 Punishment for rioting
IPC (S 146- S 148) – (1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
(2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S191) – (1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
(2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provison number .Sec 146 -148 has been consolidated under Sec 191 of BNS . There is enhancement of punishment from 3 years to 5 years.
9.3 Knowingly joining or containing, in assembly of five or more person after it has been commanded to disperse
IPC (S 151) – 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.
BNS [S 189(5)] – This section also lays down the same as in S151 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
9.4 Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot
IPC (S 152) – Punishment prescribed is with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
BNS (195) – (1) Whoever assaults or obstructs any public servant or uses criminal force on any public servant in the discharge of his duty in endeavoring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Whoever threatens to assault or attempts to obstruct any public servant or threaten or attempts to use criminal force to any public servant in the discharge of his duty in endeavoring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provison number .In cases of assault, obstruction of public servant and use of criminal force, fine has been enhanced to 25,000rs and in case of threatens to assault or attempts to obstruct any public servant or threaten or attempts to use criminal force , a new punishment have been added that is one year , fine or both.
9.5 Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot
IPC (S 153) – If the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of the provocation then the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both and if the offence of rioting not committed with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine with both.
BNS (S 192) – This section also lays down the same as in S153 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

9.6 Promoting enmity between different groups
IPC (S 153A) – The punishment for the said offence is imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and also for offence committed in place of worship shall be imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 196) – This section also lays down the same as in S 153A of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
9.7 Imputation assertion prejudicial to national integration
IPC (S 153B) – The punishment shall be imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or both. If the offence is committed in place of worship the punishment shall be imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall be liable to fine.
BNS (S 197) – (1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise,— (a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; or (b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied, or deprived of their rights as citizens of India; or (c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons; or (d) makes or publishes false or misleading information jeopardizing the sovereignty unity and integrity or security of India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number .There is insertion of “makes or publishes false or misleading information jeopardizing the sovereignty unity and integrity or security of India” in BNS.
9.8 Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly
IPC (S 157 – S 158) – (1) Whoever hires, harbour or assembles in any house or premises in his occupation or charge or under his control any person knowing that such persons have been hired, engaged or employed or about to be hired engaged and employed to join or become members of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both.
(2) Whoever hires or engages any person to do acts under Sec 141 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. If the hired or engaged persons go armed with any deadly weapons and is likely to cause death shall be punished doe a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
BNS [S 189(7), (8), (9)] – This section also lays down the same as in S 157 – S 158 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
9.9 Punishment for committing affray
IPC (S160) – Whoever commits the acts of affray i.e. disturb the peace and tranquility of the public in a public place by two or more person fighting with each other then all committing the act shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to one month or fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both.
BNS (S 194) – (1) When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray. (2) Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 1,000rs.

10. Of Offences By Or Relating To Public Servants (Ch. XII)
    10.1 Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of the official act
    IPC (S 161 S – S 165 A) –
    S161- If any public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration as permissible under Government rules for doing any official act or for favour to any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended to three years or with fine or with both.
    S162- If any person obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person any gratification for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any public servant to do or forbear to do any official act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.
    S163-Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept any gratification for influencing on personal influence any public servant for doing or to forebear for doing any official act, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both.
    S164-Public servants committing the above mentioned acts shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
    S165-Any public servant accepts or obtains, or argues to accepts or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been or to be or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
    S165A- Any person abetting the commission of the offence explained under Section 161 or Section 165 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS – These provisions from the IPC have been repealed from BNS.
    10.2 Public Servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person
    IPC (S 166) – If any public servant with the intent to cause injury to any person then he shall be punished with simple imprisonment.
    BNS (S 198) – This section also lays down the same as in S 166 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    10.3 Public Servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury
    IPC (S167):- If any public servant is charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely thereby to cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
    BNS (S 201) – This section also lays down the same as in S 167 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    10.4 Public Servant unlawfully engaging in trade
    IPC (S168):- Public servant who is not entitled to engage in trade engages in trade, shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.
    BNS (S 202) – Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both or with community service.

10.5 Public Servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property
IPC (S 169):- Public servant who is not legally entitled to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly or in shares with others shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both and the property if purchased shall be confiscated.
BNS (S 201) – This section also lays down the same as in S 169 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
10.6 Personating a Public Servant
IPC (S 170):- If any public servant pretends to any office or falsely personates any other person or attempts to do does any act under colour of such office , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years or with fine or with both.
BNS (S 204) – Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and punishment has been enhanced to three years.
10.7 Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent
IPC (S 171):- If any public servant knowing by or intentionally commits the said offence then he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both.
BNS (S 205) – Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.

11. Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public Servant (Ch XIII)
    11.1 Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceedings
    IPC (S172) – Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the summons or notice or order is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or an electronic record in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
    BNS (S 206) – Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order,––
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) where such summons or notice or order is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or an electronic record in a Court shall punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees and 10,000 rupees.
    11.2 Preventing service of summons or other proceeding or preventing publication thereof
    IPC (S173) – Preventing service summon notice, order or proceedings or prevents the lawful affixing of summon, notice or order or removes such summons, orders, notices, or proceeding which is lawful affixed or prevents the lawfully makings of any proclamation intentionally made by any competent authority then the person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. If such summon, notice, order or proceeding is that of a Court of Justice then the punishment shall be with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 207) -Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or orderor intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made,––
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) where the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or electronic record in a Court with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provison number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees and 10,000 rupees.
    11.3 Non-attendance in-obedience to an order from public servant
    IPC (S 174) – Any person who is legally bound to appear in person or by his agent at a place and time intentionally omits to attend shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. If the appearance is in connection to any summon, order or notice issued by a Court of Justice then with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 208) – Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart,–
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) where the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees and 10,000 rupees.
    11.4 Omission to produce document or electronics record to public servant by a person legally bound to produce it
    IPC (S 175) – Whoever is legally bound to produce any document intentionally omits to do so to any public servant shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. If the documents to be produced are before a Court of Justice with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 210) – Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same,––
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) and where the document or electronic record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees and 10,000 rupees.
    11.5 Omission to give any notice of information to public servant by a person legally bound to give it
    IPC (S 176) – Under this section also the punishment is twofold-one is with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. If the information as aforesaid is to be given with respect to commission of an offence or for the purpose of preventing of commission of any offence then with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. If the information to be given is by virtue of an order passed u/s 565(1) of CrPC 1898 then with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 211) – Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law,––
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) where the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees and 10,000 rupees.
    11.6 Furnishing false information
    IPC (S 177) – Whoever furnishes wrong information knowingly or intentionally which he is legally required to furnish or which he is likely to know to any public servant, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. If the information which he is legally bound to give is in respect of the commission of an offence or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
    BNS (S 212) – Whoever is legally bound to give true information on any subject to any public servant, but refuses to do so shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false,–
    (a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
    (b) where the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.
    11.7 Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it
    IPC (S 178) – Whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth, when required so to bind himself by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall so bind himself, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
    BNS (S 213) – Whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth, when required so to bind himself by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall so bind himself, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.
    11.8 Refusing to sign statement
    IPC (S180) – Whoever is legally bound to sign any statement by a public servant but refuses to do so shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 215)-Whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 3,000 rupees.
    11.9 False statement to public servant on oath or affirmation to persons authorized to administer an oath or affirmation
    IPC (S 181) – If any false information is provided on oath such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, shall also be liable to fine.
    BNS (S 216) – This section also lays down the same as in S 181 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    11.10 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
    IPC (S182) – If any person knowingly provides any false information to any public servant and makes the public servant use his lawful power then he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 217) – Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant—
    (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him; or
    (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and punishment has been enhanced to one year from six months and Fine has been enhanced to 10,000 rupees.
    11.11 Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant
    IPC (S 183) – If any person obstructs or resists the taking of property lawfully by any public servant, then he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
    BNS (S 218) – Whoever offers any resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant, knowing or having reason to believe that he is such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 10,000 rupees.
    11.12 Obstructing sale of property offered for a sale by authority of public servant
    IPC (S184) – Whoever intentionally obstructs any sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of any public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both.
    BNS (S 219) – Whoever intentionally obstructs any sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change-There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.

11.13 Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant
IPC (S 185) – If any person under any legal disability to purchase a property himself, or an any other’s behalf, bids for sale or purchase shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month or with fine of rupees two to one month or with fine of rupees two.
BNS (S 220) – This section also lays down the same as in S 185 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
11.14 Obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions
IPC (S 186) – If any person obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public function he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
BNS (S 221) – Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with
both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 2,500 rupees.
11.15 Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance
IPC (S 187) – When any person is duty bound to assist any public servant but fails to do so then he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both. If a Court of Justice requires the assistance of any person and the person omits to do so then he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
BNS (S 222) – Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance,––
(a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both;
(b) and where such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court or of preventing the commission of an offence, or suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 2,500 and 5,000 rupees.
11.16 Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
IPC (S 188) – Under this section also, if any person disobeys the order of any public servant who is legally bound to order such then he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both. If such disobedience causes danger to human life, health or safety or causes or intends to cause a riot or affray shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
BNS (S 223) – Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,–– (a) shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both;
(b) and where such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change- There is a change in provision number and punishment has been enhanced to six months and one year. Fine has been enhanced to 2,500 rupees and 5,000 rupees.
11.17 Threat to injury to public servant
IPC (S 189)- If any person threatens to injure public servant in connection to exercise public function, then he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 224) – This section also lays down the same as in S 189 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
11.18 Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant
IPC (S 190) – Whoever threatens any person to refrain from getting protection from any public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description or with fine or with both.
BNS (S 225) – This section also lays down the same as in S 190 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
11.19 Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power.
Whoever attempts to commit suicide with the intent to compel or restrain any public servant from discharging his official duty shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.

12. Of False Evidence And Offences Against Public Justice (Ch XIV):
    12.1 Giving false evidence
    IPC (S 191) – Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
    BNS (S 227) – This section also lays down the same as in S 191 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.2 Fabricating false evidence
    IPC (S 192) – Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence.”
    BNS (S 228) – This section also lays down the same as in S 192 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.3 Punishment for false evidence
    IPC (S 193) – Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
    BNS (S 229) – (1) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
    (2) Whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
    What Change- There is change in provision number and In BNS fine has been provided as 10,000 rupees and 5,000 rupees.
    12.4 Giving false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence
    IPC (S 194) – Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the laws for the time being in force in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; If innocent person be thereby convicted and executed — and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.
    BNS (S 230) – (1) Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
    (2) If an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of false evidence referred in sub-section (1), the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number and In BNS fine has been provided as 50,000 rupees.
    12.5 Giving false evidence to procure conviction
    IPC (S 195) – Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.
    BNS (S 231) – This section also lays down the same as in S 195 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.6 Using evidence known to be false
    IPC (S 196) – Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence.
    BNS (S 233) – This section also lays down the same as in S 196 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.7 Issuing or signing false certificate
    IPC (S 197) – Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
    BNS (S 234) – This section also lays down the same as in S 197 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.8 Using as true a certificate known to be false
    IPC (S 198) – Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
    BNS (S 235) – This section also lays down the same as in S 198 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.9 False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
    IPC (S 199) – Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
    BNS (S 236) – This section also lays down the same as in S 199 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.10 Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
    IPC (S 200) – Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
    BNS (S 237) – This section also lays down the same as in S 200 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.11 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
    IPC (S 201) – Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false shall,— (a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 238) – This section also lays down the same as in S 201 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.12 Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform
    IPC (S 202) – Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 239) – Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change – There is a change in provision number and fine has been provided as 5,000 rupees .
    12.13 Giving false information respecting an offence committed
    IPC (S 203) – Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 240) – This section also lays down the same as in S 203 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.14 Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence
    IPC (S 204) – Whoever secrets or destroys any document or electronic record1 which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record1 with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 241) – Whoever secretes or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number .In BNS punishment has been enhanced to 3 years and fine has been provided as 5,000rs.
    12.15 False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution
    IPC (S 205) – Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 242) – This section also lays down the same as in S 205 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.16 Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent its seizure
    IPC (S 206) – Whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced, by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 243) – Whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced, by a Court or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    What Change-There is a change in provision number. In BNS punishment has been enhanced to 3 years and fine is provided as 5,000rs.
    12.17 Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure
    IPC (S 207) – Whoever fraudulently accepts, receives or claims any property or any interest therein, knowing that he has no right or rightful claim to such property or interest, or practices any deception touching any right to any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced by a Court or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 244) – This section also lays down the same as in S 207 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.18 Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due
    IPC (S 208) – Whoever fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be passed against him at the suit of any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum than is due to such person or for any property or interest in property to which such person is not entitled, or fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be executed against him after it has been satisfied, or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 245) – This section also lays down the same as in S 208 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    12.19 Dishonestly making false claim in Court
    IPC (S 209) – Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
    BNS (S 246) – This section also lays down the same as in S 209 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

12.20 Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due
IPC (S 210) – Whoever fraudulently obtains a decree or order against any person for a sum not due, or for a larger sum than is due or for any property or interest in property to which he is not entitled, or fraudulently causes a decree or order to be executed against any person after it has been satisfied or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, or fraudulently suffers or permits any such act to be done in his name, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 247) – This section also lays down the same as in S 210 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.21 False charge of offence made with intent to injure
IPC (S 211) – Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 248) – Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person,—
(a) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees, or with both;
(b) if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
What Change- There is a change in provision number .In BNS punishment has been enhanced to 5 years and 10 years and fine has been provided as 2 lakh rupees.
12.22 Harbouring offender
IPC (S 212) – Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment shall,— (a) if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 249) – This section also lays down the same as in S 212 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.23 Taking gift, etc. to screen offender
IPC (S 213) – Whoever accepts or attempts to obtain, or agrees to accept, any gratification for himself or any other person, or any restitution of property to himself or any other person, in consideration of his concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment shall,–– (a) if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 250) – This section also lays down the same as in S 213 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.24 Offering gift or restoration of property
IPC (S 214) – Whoever gives or causes, or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, or restores or causes the restoration of any property to any person, in consideration of that person’s concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment shall,–– (a) if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 251) – This section also lays down the same as in S 213 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.25 Taking gift to help to recover stolen property, etc.
IPC (S 215) – Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any movable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 252) – This section also lays down the same as in S 215 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.26 Harbouring offender escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered
IPC (S 216) – Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say: (a) if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 253) – Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, namely:–– (a) if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or with fine, or with both.
12.27 Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits
IPC (S 216A) – Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity, or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
BNS (S 254) – This section also lays down the same as in S 216A of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.27 Disobeying direction of law to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture
IPC (S 217) – Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 255) – This section also lays down the same as in S 217 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.28 Public servant framing incorrect record
IPC (S 218) – Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 256) – This section also lays down the same as in S 218 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.29 Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law
IPC (S 219) – Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 257) – This section also lays down the same as in S 219 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.30 Commitment by person who knows that he is acting contrary to law
IPC (S 220) – Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 258) – This section also lays down the same as in S 220 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same..
12.31 Intentional omission to apprehend
IPC (S 221) – Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished,––
(a) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with death; or
(b) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; or
(c) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than ten years.
BNS (S 259) – This section also lays down the same as in S 221 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.32 Intentional omission to apprehend
IPC (S 222) – Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished,— (a) with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or (b) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended, is subject, by a sentence of a Court or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years, or upwards; or (c) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended is subject by a sentence of a Court to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years or if the person was lawfully committed to custody.
BNS (S 260) – This section also lays down the same as in S 222 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.33 Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant
IPC (S 223) – Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 261) – This section also lays down the same as in S 223 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.34 Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension
IPC (S 224) – Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 262) – This section also lays down the same as in S 224 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.35 Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant
IPC (S 225A) – Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to apprehend, or to keep in confinement, any person in any case not provided for in section 257, section 258 or section 259, or in any other law for the time being in force, omits to apprehend that person or suffers him to escape from confinement, shall be punished— (a) if he does so intentionally, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both; and (b) if he does so negligently, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 264) – This section also lays down the same as in S 225A of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.36 Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue
IPC (S 225B) – Whoever, in any case not provided for in section 260 or section 261 or in any other law for the time being in force, intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself or of any other person, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 265) – This section also lays down the same as in S 225B of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
12.37 Intentional insult in judicial proceeding
IPC (S 228) – Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
BNS (S 265) – Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
What Change-There is a change in provision number and fine has been enhanced to 5,000 rupees.
12.38 Personation of an assessor
IPC (S 229) – Whoever, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 268) – Whoever, by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as an assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
12.39 Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in court
IPC (S 229A) – Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
BNS (S 269) – Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail bond or on bond, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

13. Of Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals (Ch XV):
    IPC (S 268 to 294A) – This Chapter extends from Section 268 to 294A. Under this Chapter making public nuisance is a punishable offence. A negligent act which is likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life is punishable with imprisonment to six months or with fine, or with both. Adulteration of drugs, sale of adulterated drugs, sale of drug by changing the composition of the drug, fouling water of public spring or reservoir, making atmosphere noxious or dangerous to health and safety, negligent or rash driving on a public way, rash navigation of vessel, exhibition of false light, mark or buoy, conveying persons on hire in unsafe vessels by water, obstructing public way on road or water, negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance, negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter or with explosive substances machinery, pulling down or repairing buildings with respect to animals, are all made punishable with imprisonment of either description or with fine or with both. In case of public nuisance offender shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. An order of injunction may also be given. If the nuisance continues even after the injunction order is given the person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both. Any person who sells, publishes, hires or distributes obscene books shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. If any person sells any obscene object to any young person shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and for subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. This also includes obscene acts and songs. If any person keeps any lottery offices without the permission of the State Government shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both.
    BNS (S 270 – 297)
    273 BNS- Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
    274 BNS-Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    275 BNS-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    276 BNS-Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    277 BNS-Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to lessen its efficacy, to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    278 BNS-Whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or issues from a dispensary for medicinal purposes, any drug or medical preparation, as a different drug or medical preparation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    279 BNS-Whoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir, so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    280 BNS- Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
    282 BNS-Whoever navigates any vessel in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
    283 BNS-Whoever exhibits any false light, mark or buoy, intending or knowing it to be likely that such exhibition will mislead any navigator, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
    284 BNS-Anyone who, knowingly or through negligence, transports or arranges transportation for profit of any individual by water using any vessel, under conditions where the vessel poses a threat to the safety of said individual, shall face penalties that include imprisonment for a maximum of six months, a fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both.
    285 BNS- Any individual, through action or neglect, resulting in danger, obstruction, or harm to individuals on a public thoroughfare or waterway, shall face penalties, including fines up to five thousand rupees, for their actions or lack thereof concerning property within their control or possession.
    286 BNS- Anyone who, through any toxic material, performs an action recklessly or carelessly enough to jeopardize human existence, or to potentially inflict harm or damage upon anyone, or knowingly or carelessly fails to implement measures with any toxic material they possess that are adequate to prevent likely harm to human life from said toxic substance, shall face imprisonment of either description for a period up to six months, or a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or both.
    287 BNS- Anyone who, through recklessness or negligence, engages in actions involving fire or combustible materials that pose a threat to human life, or have the potential to harm others, or who knowingly or negligently fails to implement adequate precautions with regards to any fire or combustible material under their control to prevent foreseeable risks to human life from such sources, shall be subject to imprisonment for a period of up to six months, or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both.
    288 BNS- Anyone who, recklessly handling explosive materials, conducts actions that jeopardize human safety or may potentially harm others, or who, knowingly or carelessly, fails to implement adequate precautions with such materials to prevent potential harm to human life, shall face imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both.
    289 BNS- Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    290 BNS-Whoever, in pulling down, repairing or constructing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such measures with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
    291 BNS-Anyone who, whether intentionally or through negligence, fails to implement adequate measures for the protection of human life or prevention of severe harm from an animal under their care, will face penalties. These penalties may include imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both.
    292 BNS-Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Sanhita shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
    293 BNS-Anyone found repeating a public nuisance, after being instructed by any public official with lawful authority to desist from such conduct, shall face penalties including imprisonment for up to six months, a fine reaching five thousand rupees, or both.
    294 BNS-In the context of sub-section (2), a publication, brochure, document, manuscript, sketch, artwork, depiction, portrayal, symbol, or any other entity, encompassing the presentation of material in digital format, will be categorized as obscene if it demonstrates lasciviousness or stimulates prurient curiosity, or if its impact, or (where it includes two or more distinct components) the impact of any single component, is, when viewed as a unified entity, of a nature that tends to corrupt and morally degrade individuals who, considering all pertinent circumstances, are likely to perceive, observe, or listen to the content expressed or represented within it.
    Whoever— (a) vends, leases for hire, disseminates, publicly displays or in any way introduces into circulation, or for purposes of sale, rental, dissemination, public display or circulation, fabricates, creates or possesses any indecent book, brochure, manuscript, drawing, artwork, portrayal or image or any other indecent item whatsoever in any manner; or
    (b) brings in, sends out or transports any indecent item for any of the aforementioned purposes, or cognizant of or having grounds to suspect that such item will be vended, leased for hire, disseminated or publicly displayed or in any way introduced into circulation; or
    (c) engages in or profits from any enterprise in which he or she knows or has grounds to suspect that any such indecent items are, for any of the aforementioned purposes, fabricated, created, acquired, retained, imported, exported, transported, publicly displayed or in any way introduced into circulation; or
    (d) promotes or announces by any means whatsoever that any individual is involved or is prepared to engage in any act which is an infringement under this provision, or that any such indecent item can be obtained from or through any individual; or
    (e) Any act that constitutes an offence under this section, when performed or attempted, shall incur punishment upon initial conviction. The penalty may involve imprisonment, ranging up to two years, and a fine, up to five thousand rupees. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment for a term of up to five years, and a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, shall be imposed.
    295 BNS- Any individual who vends, leases, showcases, or disseminates to any minor under eighteen years such lewd item as specified in section 292, or attempts so to perform, shall face penalization upon initial adjudication with confinement of either description for a period which may stretch to three years, and with monetary penalty which may stretch to two thousand rupees, and, in the circumstance of a subsequent or further conviction, with incarceration of either description for a duration which may stretch to seven years, and additionally with financial penalty which may stretch to five thousand rupees.
    296 BNS-Whoever, to the annoyance of others, — (a) does any obscene act in any public place; or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
    297 BNS-(1) Anyone maintaining an office or location with the intention of conducting any lottery that is not a State-sanctioned lottery or a lottery sanctioned by the State Government shall face imprisonment for a period of up to six months, or a fine, or both. (2) Any individual disseminating a proposition to remit a sum, furnish goods, or engage in actions or abstentions for the advantage of another individual, based on an event or circumstance linked to the selection of any ticket, lot, number, or figure in such a lottery, shall face a fine of up to five thousand rupees.
14. Of Offences Relating To Religion (Ch XVI)
    14.1 Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class
    IPC (S 295) – Anyone who, with malicious intent and deliberate aim to offend the religious sentiments of any group of Indian citizens, whether through spoken or written words, signs, visible depictions, electronic mediums, or any other means, either insults or endeavors to insult the religion or the religious convictions of said group, will face penalties. These penalties may include imprisonment for a duration of up to three years, a fine, or both.
    BNS (S 298) – This section also lays down the same as in S 295 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    14.2 Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
    IPC (S 295A) – Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
    BNS (S 299) – Anyone who, with malicious intent and deliberate aim to offend the religious sentiments of any group of Indian citizens, whether through spoken or written words, signs, visible depictions, electronic mediums, or any other means, either insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious convictions of said group, will face penalties. These penalties may include imprisonment for a duration of up to three years, a fine, or both.
    14.3 Disturbing religious assembly
    IPC (S 296) – Any individual who, of their own volition, disrupts any assembly lawfully involved in conducting religious worship or ceremonies, shall face imprisonment, which could last up to one year, or a fine, or both.
    BNS (S 300) – This section also lays down the same as in S 296 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.
    14.4 Trespassing on burial places, etc.
    IPC (S 297) – With the aim to harm any individual’s sentiments, or to affront the faith of any individual or with awareness that someone’s sentiments might be hurt, or that someone’s faith could be offended thereby, perpetrates any intrusion in any sanctuary or on any burial ground, or any site designated for funeral rituals or as a repository for deceased remains, or inflicts any disrespect to any deceased body, or provokes disruption to any individuals gathered for the conduct of funeral rituals, shall be penalized with incarceration of either classification for a period which could stretch to twelve months, or with monetary penalty, or with both.
    BNS (S 301) – This section also lays down the same as in S 297 of IPC.
    What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

14.5 Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings
IPC (S 298) – Anyone who, with the clear intention of offending the religious sentiments of another individual, speaks any term or emits any noise within earshot of said individual, or performs any action within the visual field of said individual, or positions any item within the line of sight of said individual, shall face penalties including imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
BNS (S 302) – This section also lays down the same as in S 298 of IPC.
What Change- There is a change in provision number but whatever was laid down in the earlier provision of Indian Penal Code remains the same.

15. Offences against Property
16. Offences against Property (Chapter XVII)
    THEFT
    15.1 Punishment for Theft
    IPC (S378, 379) -Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
    BNS (S303) – Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine.
    Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service .

What Change: There is a Change in the provision number. In BNS additional punishment has been provided in case of second or subsequent conviction which is min one year that may extend to five years with fine. A new proviso has been added which provides that in case the value of stolen property is less than five thousand rupees and person is convicted for first time, he shall be punished with community service.
15.2 Snatching
BNS (S304) – . (1) Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.
(2) Whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change- This is a new provision that has been added.
15.3 Theft in dwelling house
IPC (S 380) – Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S305) – Whoever commits theft-
(a) in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or (b) of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
(c) of any article or goods from any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
(d) of idol or icon in any place of worship; or
(e) of any property of the Government or of a local authority, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change – There is a Change in the provision number. Some additional things has been added in the provision such as means of transportation or place of worship etc but the punishment remains the same.
15.4 Theft by clerk or servant
IPC (S 381)- Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S306)- This provision also lays down the same as in S 381,IPC .
What Change – There is a change in provision number but whatever is laid down in the earlier provision remains the same.
15.5 Theft after preparing for causing death, hurt, restraint
IPC (S 382)-Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (307)- Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change: The change in BNS 307 appears to be the addition of the phrase “IPC (S 382)-” at the beginning of the provision. This suggests that BNS 307 is likely referencing or adopting the same provision as described in Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 382. In other words, BNS 307 is incorporating or mirroring the language and legal framework outlined in IPC Section 382.
EXTORTION
15.6 Punishment for Extortion
IPC (S 384-387)-
S384- Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
S385- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
S386- Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S387- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S 308)- 308.
(1) Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
(2) Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change- It consolidates various provisions related to extortion into one section, whereas the IPC has separate sections for different aspects of extortion (Sections 384-387).
It expands the scope of extortion to include inducing fear of accusation of committing or attempting to commit an offense punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years, which is not explicitly mentioned in the IPC.
It reorganizes and rephrases the provisions related to extortion compared to the IPC, maintaining the essence but structuring it differently.
ROBBERY AND DACOITY
15.7 Punishment for Robbery
IPC (S 392-394)-
S392- Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years .
S393- Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S 394- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S309)- 309. (1) In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
(2) Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
(3) Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted .
What Change- BNS 309 defines robbery differently from the IPC. While the IPC defines robbery as a distinct offense (Sections 392-394), BNS 309 states that in all cases of robbery, there is either theft or extortion. This suggests a broader conceptualization of robbery in BNS compared to IPC.
BNS 309 introduces the concept that theft is considered robbery if certain conditions are met, specifically if the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint in order to commit the theft. This differs from the IPC, where theft and robbery are separate offenses.
BNS 309 also defines extortion as robbery if certain conditions are met, particularly if the offender, while committing extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear and induces them to deliver up the thing extorted by putting them in fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. This definition of extortion as a form of robbery is not explicitly stated in the IPC in the same manner.
Overall, BNS 309 expands and redefines the concept of robbery, incorporating elements of theft and extortion under its definition, which differs from the approach taken by the IPC.

15.8 Punishment for Dacoity
IPC (S 395-396,399-400)-
S395- Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S396- If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S399- Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S400- Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S310)- 310.
(1) When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.
(2) Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever is one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) Whoever belongs to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change- It provides a broader definition of dacoity compared to the IPC. While the IPC defines dacoity as a distinct offense (Sections 395-400), BNS 310 expands the definition to include situations where five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more.
It rephrases and reorganizes the provisions related to dacoity compared to the IPC, maintaining the essence but structuring it differently.
It introduces a new provision (subsection 5) which specifies punishment for individuals who are part of a group of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. This provision is not explicitly present in the IPC.
It retains the provisions related to punishment for making preparations for dacoity and belonging to a gang associated with habitually committing dacoity, similar to the IPC, but with some changes in wording and structure.
15.9 Belonging to the gang of robbers or thieves
IPC (S 401) – Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S313)- Whoever belongs to any gang of persons associated in habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change- It retains the essence and substance of IPC Section 401 but simplifies the language and removes the reference to “wandering” gangs. In IPC Section 401, the term “wandering gang” is used to describe a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery. However, in BNS 313, this term is omitted, and the provision simply refers to “any gang of persons associated in habitually committing theft or robbery.”
CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
15.10 Punishment for Dishonest Misappropriation
IPC (S 403) – Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
BNS (S314)- (1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
(2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehousekeeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change- Here are the notable changes:
Expanded Definition: It expands the definition of criminal breach of trust beyond simply misappropriating or converting movable property. It includes various scenarios where a person is entrusted with property or has dominion over property, and dishonestly misappropriates, converts, uses, or disposes of that property in violation of any legal direction, contract, or trust agreement. This broader definition ensures that various forms of trust violations are covered under the offense.
Specific Scenarios: It delineates specific scenarios where criminal breach of trust can occur, such as when property is entrusted to carriers, wharfingers, warehouse keepers, clerks, servants, public servants, bankers, merchants, factors, brokers, attorneys, or agents. Each scenario comes with its own punishment, which reflects the severity of the breach based on the nature of the entrusted relationship.
Increased Penalties: It introduces increased penalties for certain instances of criminal breach of trust. For example, individuals entrusted with property in their capacity as public servants or in their business capacity as bankers, merchants, etc., may face imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years, along with fines.
15.11 Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person
IPC (S 404)- Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offender at the time of such person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years .
BNS (S315)- (1) Property, the possession where of has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India, but, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
(2) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
What Change- Here are the notable changes:
Expanded Definition of Stolen Property: It provides a comprehensive definition of “stolen property” beyond just the scenario described in IPC Section 404. It includes property transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, cheating, or property criminally misappropriated or subject to criminal breach of trust. This broader definition ensures that various forms of unlawfully obtained property are covered under the offense of dealing with stolen property.
Various Offenses Related to Stolen Property: It delineates several offenses related to stolen property, such as dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, receiving stolen property transferred by dacoity, habitually dealing in stolen property, and voluntarily assisting in concealing or disposing of stolen property. Each offense comes with its own punishment, reflecting the severity of the offense.
Increased Penalties for Certain Offenses: It introduces increased penalties for certain offenses related to stolen property. For example, individuals who receive stolen property transferred by dacoity or belong to a gang of dacoits may face imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, along with fines.
Inclusion of Assistance in Concealing or Disposing of Stolen Property: It includes a provision for individuals who voluntarily assist in concealing, disposing of, or making away with stolen property. This offense carries imprisonment for up to three years, or fine, or both.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
15.12 Punishment for Criminal Breach of trust
IPC (S 406-408)-
S406- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
S407- Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
S408- Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
(BNS S. 316)- (1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
(2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehousekeeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What change-
Expanded Definition: It provides a more detailed and expanded definition of “criminal breach of trust.” It covers various scenarios where a person is entrusted with property or has dominion over property and dishonestly misappropriates, converts, uses, or disposes of that property in violation of any legal direction, contract, or trust agreement. This broader definition ensures that various forms of trust violations are covered under the offense.
Uniform Penalties: It standardizes the penalties for criminal breach of trust across different scenarios. In the IPC, penalties varied depending on the nature of the entrusted relationship (Sections 406-408). However, it applies the same punishment for criminal breach of trust regardless of the specific capacity in which the offender is entrusted with the property.
Increased Maximum Term: While the IPC imposes a maximum term of imprisonment of three years for criminal breach of trust (Section 406), BNS 316 increases this maximum term to five years. This change reflects a stricter approach towards the offense.
Inclusion of Public Servants and Business Professionals: It explicitly includes public servants and individuals in various business capacities (bankers, merchants, factors, brokers, attorneys, agents) under the purview of criminal breach of trust. This ensures that trust violations by individuals in these roles are appropriately addressed under the law.

CHEATING
15.13 Punishment for cheating
IPC (S 417,418,420)
S417- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both .
S418- Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
S420- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S318)- (1) Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
(2) Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change-
Expanded Definition of Cheating: It provides a more comprehensive definition of “cheating” compared to the IPC. While IPC Sections 417-420 focus primarily on inducing delivery of property through deception, BNS 318 broadens the definition to include any act of fraudulently or dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property, consent to retention of property, or perform an action or omission resulting in damage or harm to the deceived person in body, mind, reputation, or property. This broader definition ensures that various forms of deceptive conduct are covered under the offense of cheating.
Increased Penalties for Certain Offenses: It introduces increased penalties for certain instances of cheating. For example, individuals who cheat with the knowledge that they are likely to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest they were bound to protect may face imprisonment for up to five years, compared to three years under the IPC. This change reflects a stricter approach towards fraudulent conduct that causes significant harm or loss to others.
Uniform Penalties: It standardizes the penalties for cheating across different scenarios. In the IPC, penalties varied depending on the specific circumstances of the cheating offense (Sections 417-420). However, BNS 318 applies the same punishment for cheating regardless of the nature of the induced action or the extent of harm caused.
15.14 Cheating by personation
IPC (S416)
S416- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
BNS (S319)- (1) A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
(2) Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both .
What Change-
Expanded Definition of Cheating by Personation: It provides a more detailed and expanded definition of “cheating by personation” compared to IPC Section 416. While IPC Section 416 simply mentions cheating by personation without elaborating on the specific actions involved, BNS 319 specifies various ways in which cheating by personation can occur. These include cheating by pretending to be another person, knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing oneself or another person as someone different than they really are. This broader definition ensures that various forms of deception through personation are covered under the offense.
Increased Penalty: It introduces an increased penalty for cheating by personation compared to IPC Section 416. While IPC Section 416 specifies imprisonment of up to three years, BNS 319 increases this maximum term to five years. This change reflects a stricter approach towards fraudulent conduct involving personation.
MISCHIEF
15.15 Punishment for Mischief
IPC (S 426-427)-
S426-Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both .
S427-Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
BNS (S 323)- (1) Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.
(2) Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the property of Government or Local Authority shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (5) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(6) Whoever commits mischief, having made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine .
What Change-
Expanded Definition of Mischief: It provides a more detailed and expanded definition of “mischief” compared to IPC Sections 426-427. While IPC Sections 426-427 primarily focus on causing loss or damage to property, BNS 323 broadens the definition to include actions intended to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person. This expanded definition encompasses a wider range of behaviors that may diminish the value or utility of property or affect it injuriously.
Increased Penalties for Certain Offenses: It introduces increased penalties for certain instances of mischief compared to the IPC. For example, individuals who commit mischief causing loss or damage to property, including government or local authority property, may face imprisonment for up to one year, compared to two years under IPC Section 427. Additionally, the threshold for determining the severity of the offense based on the amount of loss or damage is adjusted, with higher penalties for larger amounts.
New Provision for Preparing to Cause Harm: It introduces a new provision for individuals who commit mischief while having made preparations to cause death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof to any person. This provision imposes a higher penalty, with imprisonment for up to five years, in addition to a fine. This reflects a stricter approach towards mischief involving preparation for harm to persons.
15.16 Mischief by killing or maiming animal
IPC (S 428,429)-
S428-—Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of the ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
S429-Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both .
BNS (S 324)- Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both .
What change-
Unified Penalty for All Animals: It provides a unified penalty for committing mischief against any animal, regardless of its species or value. In contrast, IPC Sections 428 and 429 specify different penalties based on the value or specific species of the animal involved. By removing the distinction based on value or species, BNS 324 simplifies the law and ensures consistent treatment for offenses against animals.
Increased Maximum Term: It increases the maximum term of imprisonment for committing mischief against animals to five years. In IPC Sections 428 and 429, the maximum terms of imprisonment are two years and five years, respectively, depending on the value or species of the animal. BNS 324 provides a higher maximum term across the board, reflecting a stricter approach towards offenses against animals.
Simplified Language: It uses simplified language compared to the IPC sections. It eliminates specific references to the value of the animal or to particular species, making the provision more concise and straightforward.
15.17 Mischief by injury, fire, explosive etc
IPC 430,436)-
S430-Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both .
S436-Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
BNS (S325)- Whoever commits mischief by—
(a) doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both; (b) doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both;
(c) doing any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause an inundation or an obstruction to any public drainage attended with injury or damage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both;
(d) destroying or moving any sign or signal used for navigation of rail, aircraft or ship or other thing placed as a guide for navigators, or by any act which renders any such sign or signal less useful as a guide for navigators, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
(e) destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both;
(f) fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property including agricultural produce, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(g) fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .

327. (1) Whoever commits mischief to any rail, aircraft, or a decked vessel or any vessel of a burden of twenty tons or upwards, intending to destroy or render unsafe, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby destroy or render unsafe, that rail, aircraft or vessel, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever commits, or attempts to commit, by fire or any explosive substance, such mischief as is described in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
328. Whoever intentionally runs any vessel aground or ashore, intending to commit theft of any property contained therein or to dishonestly misappropriate any such property, or with intent that such theft or misappropriation of property may be committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
     What Change-
      
     Expanded Scope of Mischief: Section 325 expands the scope of mischief by including various acts beyond those specified in IPC Section 430. While IPC Section 430 focuses primarily on acts causing diminution of water supply or obstructing public drainage, BNS 325 encompasses a wider range of actions causing diminution of water supply, rendering public roads or navigable channels impassable, causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage, destroying or moving navigational signs or signals, and destroying or moving landmarks. This expansion ensures that various forms of mischief that impact public safety and infrastructure are covered under the law.
     Increased Penalty for Certain Offenses:Section 325 introduces increased penalties for certain forms of mischief compared to the IPC. For example, individuals who commit mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to cause damage to property, including agricultural produce, may face imprisonment for up to seven years under BNS 325, whereas IPC Section 430 only specifies imprisonment for up to five years. Similarly, individuals who commit mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to destroy buildings used as places of worship or human dwellings may face imprsonment for life or up to ten years under BNS 325, whereas IPC Section 436 specifies imprisonment for life or up to ten years.
     Inclusion of Additional Offenses: Section 325 includes additional offenses related to maritime and aviation safety, which are not covered under IPC Section 430. Specifically,Section 327 addresses mischief to rail, aircraft, or vessels, and BNS 328 addresses intentional grounding of vessels with the intent to commit theft or misappropriation of property. These additions ensure that offenses related to transportation safety are adequately addressed under the law.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS
15.18 Criminal trespass and house trespass
IPC

441. Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass” .
442. House-trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass” .
     Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.
443. Lurking house-trespass.—Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass” .
444. Lurking house-trespass by night.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass by night” .
445. House-breaking.— A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:—
     First.—If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
     Secondly.—If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
     Thirdly.—If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
     Fourthly.—If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
     Fifthly.—If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
     Sixthly.—If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
     Explanation.—Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of this section .
446. House-breaking by night.—Whoever commits house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “house-breaking by night” .
447. Punishment for criminal trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both .
448. Punishment for house-trespass.—Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both .
449. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
450. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life.— Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with 1 [imprisonment for life], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
451. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years .
452. House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
453. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine .
454. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years .
455. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass, or house-breaking, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description or a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
456. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine .
457. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years .
458. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine .
459. Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking— Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
460. All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.—If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
461. Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property—Whoever dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
462. Punishment for same offence when committed by person entrusted with custody.— Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
     BNS S. 329. (1) Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit criminal trespass.
     (2) Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass.
     Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.
     (3) Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
     (4) Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both .
463. (1) Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit lurking house-trespass.
     (2) A person is said to commit house-breaking who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of the following ways, namely:––
     (a) if he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass;
     (b) if he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building;
     (c) if he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened;
     (d) if he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass;
     (e) if he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault;
     (f) if he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass .
464. (1) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
     (2) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
     (3) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years. (4) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
     (5) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass, or house-breaking, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description or a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
     (6) Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
     (7) Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
     (8) If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .
465. Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence––
     (a) punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
     (b) punishable with imprisonment for life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years .
466. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 334. (1) Whoever dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
     (2) Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both .
     What Change-
     The changes in BNS (S 329, 330, 331, 332, and 334) from the corresponding sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are as follows:
     Increased Penalties:
     Section 329 increases the maximum fine for criminal trespass from five hundred rupees under IPC Section 447 to five thousand rupees.
     Section 330 increases the maximum fine for house-trespass from one thousand rupees under IPC Section 448 to five thousand rupees.
     Additional Offense Categories and Penalties:
     Section 331 introduces new provisions for different categories of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, specifying varying penalties based on factors such as the time of the offense, intent, and preparations made. For example:
     The punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment, is increased to five years under BNS 331(4), whereas IPC does not specify separate penalties based on the time of the offense.
     Section 331(5) introduces punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking with preparations for causing harm or assault, extending the maximum penalty to ten years.
     BNS 331(6) further increases the penalty to fourteen years for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise with preparations for causing harm or assault.
     BNS 331(7) introduces a specific punishment for causing grievous hurt or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt while committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.
     Modified Penalty for Specific Offenses:
     Section 332 specifies modified penalties for house-trespass committed to facilitate the commission of offenses punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment. The term of imprisonment may be extended to seven years if the intended offense is theft.
     Increased Penalty for Breaking Receptacles:
     Section 334 increases the maximum term of imprisonment for breaking or unfastening closed receptacles containing property from two years under IPC Section 461 to three years.