Sections 1–5 IPC vs Section 1 BNS — Title, Extent and Territorial Application

In India, Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 1 to 5 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from 1 July 2024. It merges the title, territorial and extra-territorial rules into one section, adds a commencement clause, and drops the IPC's "whole of India" extent clause.

At a glance

There is no First Schedule classification for these provisions: they set the reach of the Sanhita, they do not create offences.

What changed

• Omitted — the extent clause (IPC 1): Section 1 IPC said the Code "shall extend to the whole of India". The words "except the State of Jammu and Kashmir" had already been omitted by Act 34 of 2019 with effect from 31 October 2019. Section 1 BNS has no extent clause at all.
• New — commencement (BNS 1(2)): the Sanhita "shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Sanhita." The IPC had no such clause.
• Minor edit — title (IPC 1 → BNS 1(1)): "This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code" becomes "This Act may be called the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". The heading changes from "Title and extent of operation of the Code" to "Short title, commencement and application".
• Minor edit — offences within India (IPC 2 → BNS 1(3)): the words are the same except "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita".
• Minor edit — offences beyond India triable in India (IPC 3 → BNS 1(4)): "by any Indian law" becomes "by any law for the time being in force in India"; "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita".
• Minor edit — extra-territorial offences (IPC 4 → BNS 1(5)): "The provisions of this Code apply also to" becomes "The provisions of this Sanhita shall also apply to"; the clauses are relettered (1), (2), (3) → (a), (b), (c) with no change in their words.
• Omitted — Explanation clause (b) (IPC 4): the IPC Explanation had two clauses: (a) defining "offence" to include acts outside India that would be punishable if committed in India, and (b) giving "computer resource" the meaning in clause (k) of Section 2(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The BNS keeps (a) as a single Explanation and drops (b). The phrase "computer resource" appears in the BNS only in Section 1(5)(c).
• Minor edit — Illustration (IPC 4 → BNS 1(5)): "A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda" becomes "commits a murder in any place without and beyond India". The conclusion — he can be tried and convicted in any place in India in which he may be found — is unchanged.
• Minor edit — laws not affected (IPC 5 → BNS 1(6)): "Nothing in this Act shall affect" becomes "Nothing in this Sanhita shall affect"; the rest is the same.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 4 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024), opening words and clause (3):

The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by— ... (3) any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

Extract, Section 1 BNS, sub-sections (2), (3) and (5):

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Sanhita.

(3) Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Sanhita and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India.

(5) The provisions of this Sanhita shall also apply to any offence committed by— (a) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; (c) any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

How it works — the rules step by step

1. Commencement. The official text of the BNS carries a footnote to Section 1: the Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024, "except the provision of sub-section (2) of section 106", by notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024. That official text records no later notification bringing Section 106(2) (causing death by rash and negligent driving and escaping without reporting) into force. Section 1(2) is what allowed one provision to be held back.

2. Acts within India — Section 1(3). "Every person" is liable under the Sanhita "and not otherwise" for any act or omission contrary to it of which he is guilty within India. The rule turns on where the offence is committed, not on who commits it (see Mobarik Ali Ahmed below). The words "and not otherwise" repeat Section 2 IPC.

3. Acts abroad that Indian law makes triable here — Section 1(4). Where any law in force in India makes a person liable to be tried for an offence committed beyond India, the Sanhita deals with that act "in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India".

4. Extra-territorial application — Section 1(5). The Sanhita applies to three classes of offence committed outside India:

• (a) by any citizen of India, in any place without and beyond India;
• (b) by any person, of any nationality, on a ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be;
• (c) by any person, in any place without and beyond India, where the offence targets a computer resource located in India.

The Explanation widens "offence" to every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under the Sanhita. The Illustration applies clause (a): an Indian citizen who commits murder outside India can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

5. Laws left untouched — Section 1(6). The Sanhita does not affect any Act for punishing mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the Government of India, or any special or local law.

6. The procedural companion — Section 208 BNSS. Section 1 BNS says the Sanhita reaches the offence; Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) says where and on what condition it may be tried. An offence committed outside India by a citizen of India (on the high seas or elsewhere), or by a non-citizen on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft, may be dealt with "as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India". The words "or where the offence is registered in India" are new; Section 188 CrPC ended at "at which he may be found". The proviso repeats Section 188 CrPC, save for a dropped comma after "Provided that": no such offence "shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government". Section 209 BNSS lets the Central Government direct that depositions or exhibits made abroad, "either in physical form or in electronic form", be received as evidence.

What this means in practice

For a complainant or investigating officer

• Where some ingredients of the offence occurred in India — the victim was deceived here, the money was paid here, the loss was suffered here — the first question is whether the offence was committed "within India" under Section 1(3). If it was, Section 208 BNSS is not engaged (see Ajay Aggarwal below, construing Section 188 CrPC).
• Where the offence was committed wholly abroad by an Indian citizen, Section 1(5)(a) brings it within the Sanhita, and Section 208 BNSS now allows it to be dealt with where the offence is registered in India, as well as where the accused is found.
• Before trial of an offence committed outside India, the previous sanction of the Central Government is required by the proviso to Section 208. On the Supreme Court's reading of the identically worded proviso to Section 188 CrPC, that sanction is not needed to take cognizance but must be in place before the trial proceeds beyond that stage (Thota Venkateswarlu).

For the accused and defence advocate

• Examine the charge-sheet or complaint for which acts are alleged to have occurred in India and which abroad. Offences alleged to have been committed outside India cannot be tried without sanction; offences committed in India can proceed without it (Thota Venkateswarlu, para 13, construing Section 188 CrPC).
• For a non-citizen, Section 1(5) reaches conduct abroad only on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft, or where the offence targets a computer resource located in India. Otherwise the question is whether the offence was committed within India under Section 1(3).
• For an offence under a special or local law, Section 1(6) means the BNS does not displace that law's own provisions.

On the commencement point

• Where a charge is framed under Section 106(2) BNS, the defence should check the commencement position. The official BNS text records its exclusion from the 1 July 2024 commencement and records no later notification; whether one has since issued could not be verified from our sources.

Judgments that still matter

Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay, [1958] S.C.R. 328 (1957 INSC 63) — 6 September 1957. A three-Judge Bench (Jagannadhadas, Jafer Imam and Govinda Menon JJ.; judgment delivered by Jagannadhadas J.) dismissed the appeal of a Pakistani national convicted of cheating a complainant at Bombay through representations made by letters, telegrams and telephone while he was a businessman in Karachi. The Court held that all the ingredients of cheating had occurred at Bombay and that, on a plain reading of Section 2 IPC, the Code applies to a foreigner who commits an offence in India although he was corporeally present outside it. It said that "exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends on the locality of the offence and not on the nationality of the alleged offender". The report shows no paragraph numbers. Section 1(3) BNS repeats the words of Section 2 IPC, so, on a reading of the text, the reasoning bears on Section 1(3).

Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and Ors., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 543 (1993 INSC 181) — 5 May 1993. K. Ramaswamy J. and R.M. Sahai J., in separate concurring opinions, dismissed the appeal of a non-resident Indian at Dubai charged with conspiracy, cheating and forgery against a bank at Chandigarh. The High Court had set aside the trial court's discharge order. Ramaswamy J. held that sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not a condition precedent to taking cognizance and, if needed, could be obtained before trial begins; the conspiracy was hatched at Chandigarh and was a continuing offence. Sahai J. described Section 4 IPC as the substantive law of extra-territoriality and Section 188 CrPC as its procedure, and held that because the consequences of the conspiracy, cheating and forgery took place at Chandigarh, the offence was not committed outside the country and Section 188 was not attracted. The report shows no paragraph numbers.

Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. through Principal Secretary & Anr., [2011] 11 S.C.R. 95 (2011 INSC 634) — 2 September 2011. A three-Judge Bench (Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and Surinder Singh Nijjar JJ.) considered offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC alleged to have been committed in Botswana and dowry offences alleged to have occurred in India. It held that "upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required" under the proviso to Section 188 CrPC, but the trial cannot proceed beyond that stage without it (para 11), and that Section 4 IPC made offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen amenable to the IPC, subject to that proviso (para 12). It declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to quash the complaint, directed that the Magistrate may proceed with the trial of offences alleged to have been committed in India, and directed that the offences alleged to have been committed outside India shall not be tried without Central Government sanction (para 13). The proviso to Section 208 BNSS repeats the proviso to Section 188 CrPC, so, on a reading of the text, the holding remains relevant.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed". On a reading of that provision, an offence committed before 1 July 2024 — in India or abroad — is charged under the IPC, and the territorial reach of the IPC (Sections 2 to 4) governs it. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before the BNSS came into force is disposed of, continued, held or made under the CrPC. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Sections 1 to 5 IPC? Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Sections 1 to 5 of the IPC. Section 1(1) gives the short title, Section 1(2) is a new commencement clause, and Sections 1(3) to 1(6) carry over IPC Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 in that order.

When did the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force? The official text of the BNS records, in a footnote to Section 1, that the Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024, except sub-section (2) of Section 106, by notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024. That official text records no later notification bringing Section 106(2) into force. Section 1(2) allowed different dates for different provisions.

Can an Indian citizen be prosecuted in India for an offence committed abroad? Yes. Section 1(5)(a) BNS applies the Sanhita to any offence committed by a citizen of India in any place without and beyond India, as Section 4(1) IPC did. Under Section 208 BNSS such an offence may be dealt with as if committed at any place in India where the person is found or where the offence is registered in India, but its proviso bars inquiry or trial without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Is Central Government sanction needed before a court takes cognizance of an offence committed outside India? The proviso to Section 208 BNSS, like the proviso to Section 188 CrPC, bars inquiry or trial in India without the Central Government's previous sanction. Construing Section 188 CrPC, the Supreme Court held in Thota Venkateswarlu (2011) that no sanction is needed up to the stage of taking cognizance, but the trial cannot go beyond that stage without it. The proviso's words are repeated in Section 208, so the holding remains relevant on a reading of the text.

Does the BNS cover cyber offences committed from outside India? Section 1(5)(c) BNS applies the Sanhita to any person in any place without and beyond India who commits an offence targeting a computer resource located in India. The clause repeats Section 4(3) IPC, inserted in 2009. The IPC Explanation that took the meaning of 'computer resource' from Section 2(1)(k) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is not reproduced in the BNS.

Can a foreigner who never entered India be tried for an offence whose effect was in India? Section 1(3) BNS makes every person liable for every act or omission contrary to the Sanhita of which he is guilty within India, repeating Section 2 IPC. In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957), the Supreme Court upheld a Pakistani national's cheating conviction under Section 2 IPC although he was not corporeally present in India when the offence was committed at Bombay.

Does the BNS override special laws and military laws? No. Section 1(6) BNS provides that nothing in the Sanhita affects any Act for punishing mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the Government of India, or any special or local law. The words repeat Section 5 IPC, with 'Act' replaced by 'Sanhita'.

Which law applies to an offence committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties and punishments incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced as if the IPC had not been repealed. On a reading of that provision, an offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC, and the territorial rules in IPC Sections 2 to 4 govern it.

Related

• IPC to BNS master comparison table
• Sections 6–52A IPC vs Sections 2–3 BNS — General Explanations and Definitions
• Criminal conspiracy: IPC 120A-120B vs BNS 61
• Cheating: IPC 415-420 vs BNS 318
• Online fraud and digital arrest scams under the BNS
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Sections 177–189 CrPC vs Sections 197–209 BNSS — Place of Inquiry and Trial

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 1 and 358; commencement footnote to Section 1 from the official India Code text.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 1 to 5 with amendment footnotes, and Section 18.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 208, 209 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 188.
• Judgments read in full text: Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay (1958_1_328_360_EN.md); Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993_3_543_569_EN.md); Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. (2011_11_95_104_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.