Section 420 IPC to Section 318 BNS: Cheating Law Compared, Punishment, Bail, Limitation (2026)

In India, Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaces IPC Sections 415, 417, 418 and 420, and Section 319 BNS replaces IPC Sections 416 and 419, for offences from 1 July 2024. The definitions are unchanged. Simple cheating now carries three years (was one), fiduciary cheating and personation five (were three); the Section 420 equivalent, 318(4), stays at seven years.

At a glance

Old section (IPC)	New section (BNS)	Offence in one line	Punishment (new)	Cognizable / bailable / triable by (BNSS First Schedule)	Change type
415	318(1)	Definition of "cheat"	— (definition)	—	Minor edit
417	318(2)	Cheating	Up to 3 years (was 1), or fine, or both	Non-cognizable / bailable / any Magistrate	Modified
418	318(3)	Cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound to protect	Up to 5 years (was 3), or fine, or both	Non-cognizable / bailable / any Magistrate	Modified
420	318(4)	Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or a valuable security	Up to 7 years and fine (unchanged)	Cognizable / non-bailable / Magistrate of the first class	Identical
416	319(1)	Definition of "cheat by personation"	— (definition)	—	Minor edit
419	319(2)	Cheating by personation	Up to 5 years (was 3), or fine, or both	Cognizable / bailable / any Magistrate	Modified

Each classification matches the CrPC First Schedule entry for the IPC predecessor. "Either description" means rigorous or simple (BNS s.4(c)).

What changed

Minor edit — Structure. IPC ss.415, 417, 418 and 420 become the four sub-sections of s.318, under the single heading "Cheating"; ss.416 and 419 become s.319.
Minor edit — Definition, s.415 → s.318(1). Same operative words; only the quotation marks around "cheat" are dropped.
Identical — Explanation: "A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
Identical — Illustrations (a) to (i) are carried over in the same order, with only typographical differences.
Modified — s.417 → s.318(2): "may extend to one year" → "may extend to three years"; "or with fine, or with both" kept.
Modified — s.418 → s.318(3): "three years" → "five years"; the offence words are unchanged.
Identical — s.420 → s.318(4): same words, same seven years, "and shall also be liable to fine".
Minor edit — s.416 → s.319(1): quotation marks dropped; the phrase "substituting one person for or another" appears in both texts; Explanation and Illustrations carried over.
Modified — s.419 → s.319(2): "three years" → "five years".
Identical — Classification for every limb, and compounding: the same limbs are compoundable with and without the court's permission (BNSS s.359; CrPC s.320).
Modified (consequential) — Limitation. Because the maximum for simple cheating is now three years, BNSS s.514(2)(c) gives three years to take cognizance, where CrPC s.468(2)(b) gave one year for IPC s.417. Fiduciary cheating and personation now exceed three years, so s.514 sets no bar for them; under CrPC s.468(2)(c) the IPC versions had a three-year bar.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

BNS s.318(1) repeats IPC s.415 word for word apart from the quotation marks around "cheat", and s.318(4) repeats IPC s.420 word for word. The extracts below show the words that changed.

IPC ss.417 and 418 (original text, extracts)

… 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.

… 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.318(2)–(3) (Gazette text, extract)

(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.

IPC s.419 and BNS s.319(2) (extracts)

IPC 419: 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 319(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.

How it works — ingredients

Section 318(1) defines two ways to cheat. Both start with deception, which includes dishonest concealment of facts (Explanation).

Limb	The deceived person is induced to…	Mental element of the inducement	Consequence needed
First	deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property	fraudulently or dishonestly	none further
Second	do or omit to do anything he would not do or omit if not deceived	intentionally	the act or omission causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property

"Dishonestly" means doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another (BNS s.2(7)). "Fraudulently" means doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise (s.2(9)).

The aggravated forms. Once "cheating" is made out, the sub-section decides the punishment:

s.318(2) — any cheating: the base offence.
s.318(3) — added elements: a duty, by law or legal contract, to protect the victim's interest in that very transaction, and knowledge that the cheating was likely to cause him wrongful loss.
s.318(4) — the cheating thereby dishonestly induced delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security (or of anything signed or sealed and capable of becoming one).
s.319(2) — the cheating was by personation: pretending to be another person, knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that someone is a person other than he really is. The person personated may be real or imaginary (Explanation to s.319(1)).

Worked examples from the Act's illustrations:

Illustration (a). A falsely pretends to be in the Civil Service and so gets goods on credit that he does not mean to pay for. A cheats. The goods were delivered, so on a reading of the text s.318(4) is engaged, not only s.318(2).
Illustration (g) — the breach-of-contract line. A takes an advance for indigo he does not intend to deliver: A cheats. But "if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract."
Illustration (i). A, having sold an estate to B, sells or mortgages it to Z without disclosing the earlier sale and takes Z's money. A cheats. This is the Explanation at work: concealment is deception.

What this means in practice

For a person who has been cheated. Procedure depends on the sub-section.

Section 318(4) or 319(2) (cognizable). Report to the police station; the information must be recorded and a copy given free of cost (BNSS s.173(1)–(2)). For s.319(2), punishable with five years, the officer may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, hold a preliminary enquiry for up to fourteen days before investigating (s.173(3)). If the station refuses, send the substance by post to the Superintendent of Police (s.173(4)).
Section 318(2) or 318(3) (non-cognizable). The officer records the substance and refers you to the Magistrate (s.174(1)); police may not investigate without a Magistrate's order (s.174(2)). On a complaint, the Magistrate examines the complainant on oath and must give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance (s.223(1)).
Time limit. For s.318(2), file within three years (BNSS s.514(2)(c)). Time runs from the offence, or from when it first became known to the person aggrieved or the police (s.515(1)).

For the accused. Sections 318(2), 318(3) and 319(2) are bailable, so bail is a right under BNSS s.478. Section 318(4) is non-bailable: bail is discretionary under s.480, and a person who expects arrest can apply to the Sessions Court or High Court under s.482. For cognizable offences punishable with up to seven years (s.318(4), s.319(2)), BNSS s.35(1)(b) allows arrest only if the officer records why it is necessary. Where arrest is not required, s.35(3) requires a notice of appearance instead.

For both sides — settling. The person cheated can compound s.318(2) or s.319(2) without permission, and s.318(3) or s.318(4) with the court's permission (BNSS s.359(1)–(2)); composition operates as an acquittal (s.359(8)).

For investigating officers and advocates. Name the sub-section in the FIR, charge-sheet or complaint; "cheating" alone no longer fixes the punishment. Record when each representation was made and what the accused then knew, because the cases below turn on intention at the time of the inducement. Do not add criminal breach of trust (now BNS s.316) as a matter of course; Delhi Race Club criticised that practice.

Judgments that still matter

Sections 318(1) and 318(4) repeat the operative words of IPC ss.415 and 420, so on a reading of the text judgments construing those words remain relevant. No judgment applying BNS s.318 or s.319 was read for this page.

Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma v. State of Bihar, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 859 (2000 INSC 178) (the first appellant's name also appears as Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma) — decided 31 March 2000 by K.T. Thomas and D.P. Mohapatra JJ; judgment by Mohapatra J. The Court noted that s.415 has two classes of inducement: fraudulent or dishonest for delivery or retention of property, intentional for doing or omitting an act. It held: "Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction" (report p. 869). Intention may be judged by later conduct, but later conduct "is not the sole test". A complaint alleging only that the sellers had not disclosed a pending partition suit, without alleging that the silence was intended to make the buyer part with property, was quashed. Why it matters: it is the judicial statement of Illustration (g), which s.318(1) keeps word for word.

Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1254 — decided 4 September 2009 by R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha JJ; judgment by Raveendran J. The Court listed the ingredients of cheating (deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, resulting damage or harm) and, for s.420, a dishonestly induced delivery of property or dealing with a valuable security (para 13). A complainant alleging that the accused sold his land to a third party was not himself deceived, so ss.417 to 420 were not made out; the purchaser, if deceived, might complain (paras 14–15). Why it matters: under s.318, as under s.415, the deception must be practised on the person who was induced.

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated, [2010] 14 S.C.R. 591 (2010 INSC 713) — decided 20 October 2010 by B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar JJ; judgment by Nijjar J. First, a company "cannot escape liability for a criminal offence, merely because the punishment prescribed is that of imprisonment and fine" (para 40). Second, the inducement must be caused by the deception, and on the Explanation to s.415, "non-disclosure of relevant information would also be treated as a mis-representation of facts leading to deception" (para 42). The High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by analysing complex commercial documents to quash the complaint; its order was set aside (paras 45–46). Why it matters: s.318(4) keeps "shall also be liable to fine", and s.318(1) keeps the concealment Explanation, so both holdings apply to the same words.

Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2024] 8 S.C.R. 670 (2024 INSC 626) — decided 23 August 2024 by J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ; judgment by Pardiwala J. The case arose under the IPC. The Court held that in cheating the dishonest intention "must be there from the very beginning or inception" (para 26). Cheating and criminal breach of trust, "although … involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept" (para 30). In a sale of goods, property passes on delivery, so non-payment is not criminal breach of trust (para 36). It called for police training and said the two provisions "of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other" (para 43). Why it matters: the Court itself linked its reasoning to the BNS, and the defining words of ss.316 and 318 are carried over.

Which law applies to your case

BNS s.358(2) keeps penalties and proceedings for offences committed against the IPC alive "as if that Code had not been repealed". Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the one available under the law in force when the offence was committed. On a reading of those provisions, cheating committed before 1 July 2024 is charged and punished under IPC ss.415–420, so the higher BNS maxima cannot apply to it. BNSS s.531(2)(a) keeps investigations, inquiries and trials pending on that date under the CrPC. See Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 420 IPC? Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 420 IPC for offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. The words are the same and so is the punishment: imprisonment of either description up to seven years and fine. It remains cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Has the punishment for cheating increased under the BNS? Yes, at three of four levels. Simple cheating rises from one year (IPC s.417) to three years (BNS s.318(2)); cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound to protect rises from three to five years (s.318(3)); and cheating by personation rises from three to five years (s.319(2)). Section 318(4), the s.420 equivalent, is unchanged at seven years and fine.

Is cheating under Section 318 BNS bailable? Sections 318(2), 318(3) and 319(2) are bailable, so bail is a matter of right under BNSS Section 478. Section 318(4) is non-bailable, so bail is discretionary under BNSS Section 480, and anticipatory bail may be sought under Section 482. The BNSS First Schedule classifies each sub-section exactly as the CrPC First Schedule classified its IPC predecessor.

When does a breach of contract become cheating? Only when the deception and the dishonest or fraudulent intention existed when the promise was made. Illustration (g) to BNS Section 318(1) says a person who intended to deliver when he took the money, and later broke the contract, does not cheat. The Supreme Court held the same under IPC Section 415 in Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma (2000) and repeated it in Delhi Race Club (2024).

Can a cheating case be settled by compromise? Yes. Under BNSS Section 359(1), the person cheated may compound offences under Sections 318(2) and 319(2) without the court's permission. Offences under Sections 318(3) and 318(4) may be compounded by the person cheated only with the permission of the court under Section 359(2). A composition has the effect of an acquittal (Section 359(8)).

What is the time limit for filing a cheating complaint? BNSS Section 514 bars cognizance after three years for an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, which covers simple cheating under Section 318(2). Under CrPC Section 468 the period for IPC Section 417 was one year. Sections 318(3), 318(4) and 319(2) carry more than three years, so Section 514 sets no period for them.

Can the same facts be both cheating and criminal breach of trust? In Delhi Race Club (2024) the Supreme Court said the two offences are mutually exclusive: cheating needs dishonest intention at the start of the transaction, while criminal breach of trust needs lawful entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation. It held that non-payment for goods sold is not criminal breach of trust, because property in the goods passes to the buyer. The two offences are now BNS Sections 318 and 316.

Sources

Acts and sections read (primary text):

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250883): ss.2(7), 2(9), 4, 318 (with Explanation and Illustrations), 319, 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original text): ss.415–420.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: ss.35, 173, 174, 223, 359, 478, 480, 482, 514, 515, 531(2)(a); First Schedule entries for BNS ss.318(2)–(4) and 319(2).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.320, 468; First Schedule entries for IPC ss.417–420.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).

Judgments read (Supreme Court, judgment text):

Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma v. State of Bihar, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 859 — corpus file 2000_2_859_870_EN.md.
Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1254 — corpus file 2009_13_1254_1270_EN.md.
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated, [2010] 14 S.C.R. 591 — corpus file 2010_14_591_642_EN.md.
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2024] 8 S.C.R. 670 — corpus file 2024_8_670_699_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.

Sections 415-420 IPC vs Sections 318-319 BNS — Cheating and Cheating by Personation