Sections 269–278 IPC vs Sections 271–280 BNS — Spreading Infection, Quarantine, Adulteration of Food and Drugs, Water and Air

In India, Sections 271 to 280 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the public-health offences in Sections 269 to 278 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from 1 July 2024. The infection offences are unchanged; quarantine now covers any "mode of transport", and most fines rise, with drug adulteration's maximum doubling to one year.

At a glance

All imprisonment above is "of either description". The CrPC First Schedule classified each IPC section the same way, once its "Ditto" entries are traced: Sections 272 to 276 IPC were non-cognizable (a Ditto run back to the Section 271 row), and Section 274 IPC was non-bailable — an entry substituted for "Ditto" by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23 June 2006. None of these offences is compoundable: none appears in Section 320 CrPC or Section 359 BNSS.

What changed

Identical

• Sections 271 and 272 BNS (IPC 269 and 270): word for word the same, including "unlawfully or negligently" (Section 271), "malignantly" (Section 272) and "likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life".

Expanded — quarantine (IPC 271 → BNS 273)

• "any rule made and promulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine" becomes "any rule made by the Government for putting any mode of transport into a state of quarantine". "and promulgated" is dropped.
• "for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels" becomes "for regulating the intercourse of any such transport in a state of quarantine" — the reference to the shore and other vessels is dropped.
• The third limb, rules "for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places", and the punishment are unchanged.

Modified — punishment only (text otherwise the same)

• Section 274 (IPC 272) and Section 275 (IPC 273): "fine which may extend to one thousand rupees" → "five thousand rupees".
• Section 276 (IPC 274): "a term which may extend to six months" → "one year"; fine one thousand → five thousand rupees.
• Sections 277 and 278 (IPC 275 and 276): fine one thousand → five thousand rupees.
• Section 279 (IPC 277): "three months" → "six months"; fine "five hundred rupees" → "five thousand rupees".
• Section 280 (IPC 278): fine-only offence; "five hundred rupees" → "one thousand rupees".

Neighbouring provisions: Section 270 BNS (public nuisance, IPC 268) opens the chapter and Section 281 BNS (rash driving, IPC 279) follows it; both are covered on their own pages (see Related).

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 271 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, ...

Extract, Section 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.

Extract, Section 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.

How it works

Infection (Sections 271 and 272) — three elements: (1) an act, done "unlawfully or negligently" (Section 271) or "malignantly" (Section 272); (2) the act "is" likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life; and (3) the person "knows or has reason to believe" that it is. The mental element separates the six-month offence from the two-year one.

Quarantine (Section 273) — (1) a rule "made by the Government" of one of the three kinds; (2) disobedience; (3) done "knowingly". The offence depends on a rule existing; it does not itself set quarantine conditions.

Food and drink (Sections 274 and 275)

• Section 274: the accused adulterates an article of food or drink "so as to make such article noxious as food or drink", intending to sell it as food or drink or knowing it is likely to be sold as such.
• Section 275: the accused sells, offers or exposes for sale as food or drink an article that "has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink", knowing or having reason to believe it is noxious.

Drugs (Sections 276 to 278)

• Section 276: adulteration that lessens efficacy, changes operation or makes the drug noxious, with the intention or knowledge that it will be sold or used for a medicinal purpose "as if it had not undergone such adulteration".
• Section 277: knowing a drug to be so adulterated, selling it, offering or exposing it for sale, issuing it from a dispensary "as unadulterated", or causing it to be used by a person "not knowing of the adulteration".
• Section 278: knowingly selling, offering or issuing a drug or medical preparation "as a different drug or medical preparation".

Water and air (Sections 279 and 280)

• Section 279: voluntarily corrupting or fouling the water "of any public spring or reservoir" so as to make it "less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used".
• Section 280: voluntarily vitiating the atmosphere so as to make it "noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way".

What this means in practice

For food business operators and their advocates

• Before responding to an FIR under Section 274 or 275 BNS, check whether the allegation concerns food in the field covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Ram Nath (below) quashed IPC 272–273 prosecutions on that ground and left the authorities free to proceed under Section 59 of that Act — which, the judgment records, carries heavier punishment. On a reading of the text, the same argument is available against Sections 274 and 275 BNS, whose operative words are the same; no judgment applying it to the BNS was read for this page.

For pharmacists, drug distributors and dispensaries

• Section 276 (adulterating drugs) is the only non-bailable offence in this group, and its maximum is now one year. Selling or issuing an adulterated drug (Section 277) or a substitute drug (Section 278) is bailable, with a six-month maximum and a ₹5,000 fine cap.

For complainants and investigating officers

• Fouling a public spring or reservoir (Section 279) is cognizable; making the atmosphere noxious (Section 280) is not, and is punishable with fine only.
• Limitation: Section 514(2) BNSS, like Section 468(2) CrPC, allows six months for an offence "punishable with fine only" (Section 280) and one year where imprisonment does not exceed one year (Sections 271, 273 to 279). Section 272 BNS (up to two years) falls in the three-year category. The period for Section 276 stays at one year because its new maximum is exactly one year — a reading of the text.
• A charge under Section 271 or 272 needs the ingredients of the section, not only the circumstances of an epidemic: B.V. Ram Kumar (below) quashed a Covid-19 chargesheet under Sections 269 and 270 IPC on that ground.

Judgments that still matter

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2024] 2 S.C.R. 743 (2024 INSC 138) — 21 February 2024. Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol JJ. considered FIRs under Sections 272 and 273 IPC for food adulteration registered after the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 came fully into force. The Court read Section 272 as requiring intention to sell (para 17) and Section 273 as requiring knowledge or reasonable belief that the article is noxious (para 18). Construing Section 89 of the 2006 Act, it held that "by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC" and that "there will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes" (para 21). It set aside the High Court's orders in three appeals, quashed the IPC offences with liberty to proceed under the 2006 Act, and dismissed the State's appeals against the Allahabad High Court's decision in Pepsico India (para 22). The case predates the BNS; Sections 274 and 275 BNS repeat the words construed.

Swami Achyutanand Tirth & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2016] 4 S.C.R. 849 — 5 August 2016. A three-Judge Bench (T.S. Thakur CJI, R. Banumathi and Uday Umesh Lalit JJ.) disposed of a writ petition on adulteration of milk with directions to the Union and the States on enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (para 22). The judgment records that Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha had amended Section 272 IPC to provide imprisonment for life, and that the Court's earlier order of 5 December 2013 observed that "similar amendments are to be made in other states as well" (para 19). In para 21 it said "it will be in order" if the Union considers amending the penal provisions on a par with those State amendments — a suggestion, not a direction. Section 274 BNS, as enacted, keeps a six-month maximum.

Mr. 'X' v. Hospital 'Z', [1998] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 723 — 21 September 1998; clarified in Mr. "X" v. Hospital "Z", [2002] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 661 — 10 December 2002. In 1998, S. Saghir Ahmad and B.N. Kirpal JJ., dismissing a doctor's claim over a hospital's disclosure of his HIV status, stated that a person with AIDS who knowingly marries and transmits the infection "would be guilty of offences indicated in Sections 269 and 270" (report pages 738–739). In 2002, a three-Judge Bench (S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi and Arun Kumar JJ.) held that those general observations — including whether such persons "would commit an offence under law" if they marry — were "unnecessary" and "uncalled for", except the holding that the appellant's right was not affected by the disclosure to his fiancée's relatives (report page 665). The 1998 statement on Sections 269 and 270 therefore does not stand as a holding.

B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 48 (2025 INSC 194) — 10 February 2025. Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta JJ. quashed a chargesheet under Sections 269, 270 and 504 IPC against the director of an institute, alleged to have failed to supply PPE kits during Covid-19. The Court held that the allegations were "purely conjectural" and "by no stretch of imagination" sufficient to constitute the ingredients of Sections 269 and 270, noting witness statements that there was no shortage of PPE kits (para 17), and set aside the High Court's order declining to quash (para 30). The case applied the IPC; Sections 271 and 272 BNS are identical in text.

No Supreme Court judgment applying Sections 271 to 280 BNS was found in the corpus searched for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS preserves 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 text, conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 269 to 278 IPC. Proceedings pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time of the offence; on a reading of that Article, the higher fines and the longer terms in Sections 276 and 279 BNS cannot be applied to earlier conduct. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Sections 269 to 278 IPC? Sections 269 to 278 IPC are now Sections 271 to 280 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the same order: each IPC section number plus two. Section 269 IPC (negligent act likely to spread infection) is Section 271 BNS, Section 272 IPC (food adulteration) is Section 274 BNS and Section 278 IPC (noxious atmosphere) is Section 280 BNS.

Has the punishment for food adulteration changed under the BNS? Only the fine cap. Section 274 BNS (adulteration of food or drink intended for sale) and Section 275 BNS (sale of noxious food or drink) keep imprisonment of either description up to six months, but the fine may now extend to five thousand rupees instead of one thousand. Both remain non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate.

Is adulteration of drugs a bailable offence under the BNS? No. The BNSS First Schedule lists Section 276 BNS, adulterating a drug or medical preparation intended for sale, as non-cognizable and non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate, as the CrPC listed Section 274 IPC. The maximum imprisonment rises from six months to one year and the fine cap from one thousand to five thousand rupees. Selling adulterated drugs (Section 277) and selling a drug as a different drug (Section 278) remain bailable.

What changed in the quarantine offence? Section 273 BNS replaces Section 271 IPC. The IPC punished disobeying a quarantine rule made and promulgated by the Government for vessels and their intercourse "with the shore or with other vessels". Section 273 BNS covers a rule made by the Government for putting any "mode of transport" into quarantine and for regulating the intercourse of any such transport. Punishment is unchanged at up to six months, or fine, or both.

Can a food adulteration case be filed under both the BNS and the Food Safety and Standards Act? In Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 138), the Supreme Court held that, by virtue of Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 59 of that Act overrides Sections 272 and 273 IPC, so there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both statutes. Sections 274 and 275 BNS repeat the operative words of Sections 272 and 273 IPC, so, on a reading of the text, the reasoning bears on them; no judgment applying it to the BNS was read for this page.

Is spreading an infectious disease a crime under the BNS? Yes. Section 271 BNS punishes an unlawful or negligent act which the person knows or has reason to believe is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, with up to six months, or fine, or both. Section 272 BNS punishes the same act done malignantly with up to two years, or fine, or both. Both are cognizable and bailable, and the text is identical to Sections 269 and 270 IPC.

Which law applies to adulteration committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to continue as if it had not been repealed, so, on a reading of that text, conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 269 to 278 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law then in force; on a reading of that Article, the higher BNS fines and prison terms cannot be applied to earlier conduct.

Related

• Public nuisance: IPC 268, 290, 291 vs BNS 270, 292, 293
• Public safety and negligent conduct: IPC 280-289 vs BNS 282-291
• Rash driving: IPC 279 vs BNS 281
• Limitation for taking cognizance: CrPC 468-473 vs BNSS
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• IPC to BNS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 271 to 280 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 269 to 278.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 359, 514 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 271 to 280 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 320 and 468, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 269 to 278 IPC, with the Act 25 of 2005 footnotes.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024_2_743_757_EN.md); Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India (2016_4_849_866_EN.md); Mr. X v. Hospital Z (S_1998_1_723_740_EN.md and S_2002_4_661_665_EN.md); B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana (2025_3_48_64_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.