Section 384 IPC vs Section 308 BNS — Extortion (IPC 383-389)

In India, Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the extortion provisions, Sections 383 to 389 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on 1 July 2024. The definition is unchanged; the maximum for simple extortion rises from three years (Section 384 IPC) to seven years (Section 308(2)).

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 384 IPC as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate. It classified Sections 385 to 389 IPC as their BNS counterparts are now classified. It also had separate rows, punishable with imprisonment for life, where the offence threatened in Sections 388 and 389 was an "unnatural offence"; those rows have no BNSS equivalent.

What changed

• Minor edit — Section 308(1) (IPC 383): the definition is word for word the same; only the quotation marks around "extortion" are dropped. Illustrations (a) to (d) are carried over. The India Code IPC text prints "Z sings" in Illustrations (b) and (d); the BNS reads "signs".
• New — Illustration (e) to Section 308(1): "A threatens Z by sending a message through an electronic device" that Z's child will be put to death unless Z sends one lakh rupees, and so induces Z to give him money. "A has committed extortion."
• Modified — Section 308(2) (IPC 384): "a term which may extend to three years" becomes "a term which may extend to seven years". "Or with fine, or with both" is unchanged.
• Identical — Sections 308(3), (4) and (5) (IPC 385, 387 and 386): same words and punishments. Note the reordering: the attempt-stage offence (IPC 387) now comes before the completed offence (IPC 386).
• Modified — Sections 308(6) and (7) (IPC 389 and 388): the main text and punishment (up to ten years and fine) are unchanged. Both IPC sections ended with a limb allowing imprisonment for life where the offence was punishable under Section 377 (Section 389: "if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code"; Section 388: "if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code"). That limb is omitted; the BNS has no counterpart to Section 377 IPC.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 384 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

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.

Extract, Section 308 BNS, sub-sections (1) and (2):

(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.

How it works — the ingredients

Section 308(1) has four elements.

1. Putting a person in fear of injury — to that person "or to any other". Illustration (b): a threat to keep Z's child in wrongful confinement.
2. Intention — the fear must be caused "intentionally".
3. Inducing delivery — the person put in fear is thereby induced to deliver, to any person, property, a valuable security, or "anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security". Illustration (d): a blank paper signed under fear of grievous hurt is enough, because it may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Dishonesty — the inducement must be dishonest.

The two stages. Section 308 punishes both the completed offence and the step before it:

Since 308(2) now carries seven years, a completed simple extortion carries the same maximum term as the fear-stage offence under 308(4); the difference is in the fine: 308(2) reads "or with fine, or with both", while 308(4) reads "and shall also be liable to fine".

Neighbouring offences:

• Robbery (Section 309(3)): extortion becomes robbery when the offender is present and puts the victim in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint, inducing delivery "then and there". Illustration (d) to Section 309 draws the line: obtaining property by saying that Z's child "will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees" is extortion, but not robbery unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.
• Criminal intimidation (Section 351) needs no delivery.
• Section 119 BNS punishes voluntarily causing hurt to extort property.

What this means in practice

For the complainant

• The complaint should show the threat, what was demanded, and whether anything was actually handed over. If nothing was delivered, the offence alleged should be the fear-stage offence (308(3), (4) or (6)), not 308(2), (5) or (7) (see Salib and Balaji Traders below).
• Illustration (e) confirms that a threat by message on an electronic device can found extortion; preserve the device and the message. Admissibility is a matter for the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• Extortion cannot be compounded. No form of Section 308 appears in either table of Section 359 BNSS, and Section 359(9) bars compounding except as that section provides.

For the accused and defence advocate

• Simple extortion (308(2)) is non-bailable and, since 1 July 2024, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Sections 308(3), (6) and (7) remain bailable.
• For a completed-extortion charge, test whether the complaint alleges delivery induced by fear, or only a forcible taking or an unmet demand.
• Section 479(1) BNSS allows release after detention for one-half of the maximum term, or one-third for a first-time offender. On a reading of the text, for Section 308(2) that is now measured against seven years rather than three.

For the investigating officer

• Record whether property was delivered, to whom, and whether the victim parted with it because of the fear. The choice between the fear-stage and completed offences, and so the punishment and bail status, turns on it.

Judgments that still matter

Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 924 — 6 October 1959. S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar and M. Hidayatullah JJ. upheld a conviction under Section 506 IPC. The appellant had threatened a girl's father that he would circulate nude photographs of her unless "hush money" was paid. The appellant argued that the finding showed at most attempted extortion. The Court held that the threat of injury to reputation, made to cause the father to do an act he was not legally bound to do, was criminal intimidation. It observed that "There are obvious differences between the offence of extortion as defined in s. 383 and the offence of criminal intimidation", and that one act may fall within different definitions in different aspects. The report does not show paragraph numbers. The definitions construed are repeated in Sections 308(1) and 351(1) BNS.

Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2023] 11 S.C.R. 58 (2023 INSC 687) — 8 August 2023. B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala JJ. quashed an FIR that invoked Section 386 IPC. The Court held that "the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury". It added that "Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition" (para 22). Because nothing showed the informant parted with money out of fear, no offence under Section 386 was made out (para 24). Section 308(1) BNS repeats the words construed, and Section 308(5) repeats Section 386.

M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2025] 7 S.C.R. 364 (2025 INSC 806) — 5 June 2025. Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra JJ. set aside a High Court order quashing a summons under Section 387 IPC. The High Court had reasoned that no money was delivered. The Court explained that Sections 386 and 388 punish completed extortion, while Sections 385, 387 and 389 punish acts "even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered" (para 10). It held that "for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary" (para 14), and restored the complaint (paras 26-27). The case applied the IPC; the same structure is kept in Sections 308(3) to 308(7) BNS.

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, extortion committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 383 to 389 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, so, on a reading of that Article, the seven-year maximum in Section 308(2) 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 Section 384 IPC? Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 384 IPC, and Section 308(1) replaces the definition in Section 383. Extortion is now punishable with imprisonment of either description up to seven years, or fine, or both; Section 384 IPC allowed up to three years.

Where have Sections 385 to 389 IPC gone? They are now sub-sections of Section 308 BNS: Section 385 is 308(3), Section 387 is 308(4), Section 386 is 308(5), Section 389 is 308(6) and Section 388 is 308(7). The order has changed, so the IPC and BNS numbers do not run in parallel. Their punishments are unchanged except that the life-imprisonment limb tied to Section 377 IPC in Sections 388 and 389 is omitted.

Is extortion bailable under the BNS? Simple extortion under Section 308(2) BNS is cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class under the BNSS First Schedule. Section 308(3), 308(6) and 308(7) are bailable; Section 308(4) and 308(5) are non-bailable. The CrPC First Schedule listed Section 384 IPC as triable by any Magistrate, so the trial court for simple extortion has changed.

Is delivery of property necessary for extortion? For the completed offence, yes. Section 308(1) BNS requires that the person put in fear is dishonestly induced to deliver property, a valuable security or something signed or sealed that can be converted into one. In Salib v. State of U.P. (2023 INSC 687, paras 22 and 24) the Supreme Court held that delivery must be with consent obtained by fear. In Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 806, para 14) it held that delivery is not needed for the separate offence of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion (Section 387 IPC, now Section 308(4)).

What is the difference between extortion and criminal intimidation? Extortion under Section 308(1) BNS requires that the victim is dishonestly induced to deliver property. Criminal intimidation under Section 351(1) BNS is complete when a threat of injury is made with intent to cause alarm, or to make the person do or omit an act, whether or not anything is delivered. In Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 924), a threat to publish photographs unless hush money was paid was held to be criminal intimidation.

Can extortion be compromised? No. No form of extortion under Section 308 BNS appears in either table of Section 359 BNSS, and Section 359(9) states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section. Section 320 CrPC did not list Sections 383 to 389 IPC either.

Which law applies to extortion committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text extortion committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 383 to 389 IPC. On a reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, the seven-year maximum in Section 308(2) cannot be imposed for earlier conduct; Section 384 IPC allowed three years.

Related

• Extortion and threats — BNS 308 and 351 vs IPC 383-389, 503-507
• Criminal intimidation: IPC 503-507 vs BNS 351
• Robbery and dacoity: IPC 392-395 vs BNS
• Online fraud and digital arrest scams — BNS 318, 319, 308
• Unnatural offences — IPC 377 omitted from the BNS
• IPC to BNS — master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 119, 308, 309, 351 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 383 to 389, with footnotes.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 359, 479 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Section 308(2) to (7) BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 384 to 389 IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State (1960_1_924_935_EN.md); Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. (2023_11_58_75_EN.md); M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. (2025_7_364_379_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.