Section 427 IPC vs Section 324 BNS — Mischief (IPC 425-427 and 440)

In India, Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 425, 426, 427 and 440 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The definition of mischief is unchanged, the basic maximum doubles from three to six months, and IPC 427's single fifty-rupee tier becomes three damage tiers of up to one, two and five years.

At a glance

Schedule wording for 324(4). Section 324(4) BNS itself reads "twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees". The BNSS First Schedule entry for 324(4), as printed in the Gazette, describes the band as "twenty thousand rupees but less than 2 lakh rupees". This page states the band in the words of the section; the two texts differ, and the page records the difference without drawing a conclusion from it.

Under the CrPC First Schedule, Sections 426 and 427 IPC were non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate (the "Ditto" entries trace up to the Section 421-422 rows), and Section 440 IPC was cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

What changed

• Minor edit — Section 324(1) (IPC 425): the definition, Explanations 1 and 2 and Illustrations (a) to (h) repeat Section 425. The quotation marks around "mischief" in "commits “mischief”" are dropped. The India Code IPC text prints Illustration (b) as "introduces water in to an ice-house"; the BNS reads "into".
• Modified — Section 324(2) (IPC 426): "a term which may extend to three months" becomes "a term which may extend to six months". The alternatives "or with fine, or with both" remain.
• New — Section 324(3): "Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the property of Government or Local Authority" — up to one year, or fine, or both. Section 427 IPC turned only on the amount.
• Modified — Section 324(4) (IPC 427): IPC 427's threshold "fifty rupees or upwards" (up to two years) is replaced by the band "twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees", still up to two years, or fine, or both.
• Expanded — Section 324(5): a new top tier, "one lakh rupees or upwards", punishable with up to five years, or fine, or both. The IPC's highest general tier was two years.
• Identical in words — Section 324(6) (IPC 440): "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" — up to five years, "and shall also be liable to fine". Only its position changes, from a separate section to a sub-section.
• Modified — classification and compounding: Section 324(5) is cognizable (Section 427 IPC was not, whatever the amount), and Section 359(1) BNSS lists only Sections 324(2) and 324(4) as compoundable, where Section 320(1) CrPC listed both Sections 426 and 427 IPC.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 427 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

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.

Extract, Section 324 BNS, sub-sections (1) and (3) to (5):

(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.

(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.

How it works — the ingredients

Section 324(1) BNS has three elements. The Supreme Court identified the same three in the identical words of Section 425 IPC in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India (para 30).

1. The mental element — intent to cause, or knowledge that the accused is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. "Wrongful loss" is defined in Section 2(37) BNS as "the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled". Explanation 1 makes clear that the intended victim need not be the owner of the property: it is enough to intend or know of likely wrongful loss or damage "to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not".
2. The act — causing the destruction of any property, or "any such change in any property or in the situation thereof". Illustration (b) (water let into an ice-house, melting the ice) and Illustration (h) (cattle driven onto a field to damage the crop) show that a change in the property's situation is enough.
3. The result — the change "destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously".

Own property. Explanation 2 says mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the accused, or to the accused and others jointly. Illustrations (d) (a debtor destroying his own effects to defeat a creditor), (e) (an owner casting away his insured ship) and (g) (a joint owner shooting a horse) all involve property the accused owns wholly or in part.

Choosing the tier. Once mischief is proved, the punishment depends on what was caused (see the table above); Section 324(6) applies instead where the accused had made preparation for causing death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of them.

On a reading of the text, a loss below ₹20,000 falls under Section 324(3), whose maximum is one year. Under Section 427 IPC, any damage of fifty rupees or more carried up to two years, so for losses between ₹50 and ₹20,000 the maximum is now lower, while for losses of ₹1 lakh or more it is higher.

Neighbouring provisions (not covered in full here). Mischief to animals (IPC 428 and 429) is now Section 325 BNS, up to five years whatever the animal's value. Mischief by diminishing water supply, damaging public roads and bridges, causing inundation, moving navigation signs or public land-marks, and by fire or explosive substance (IPC 430 to 436) is now Section 326(a) to (g) BNS. Mischief to a vessel of twenty tons burden (IPC 437 and 438) is now Section 327 BNS, which adds "rail" and "aircraft". Running a vessel aground to commit theft (IPC 439) is now Section 328 BNS.

What this means in practice

For the complainant

• Quantify the loss. The sub-section, and with it whether the police can act without a Magistrate's order, turns on the amount. For loss of ₹1 lakh or more (Section 324(5)), the offence is cognizable and an FIR can be registered. For the lower tiers, the offence is non-cognizable: under Section 174(1) BNSS the officer in charge enters the substance of the information and refers the informant to the Magistrate, and under Section 174(2) no police officer may investigate without a Magistrate's order.
• Keep evidence of value. Sections 324(4) and (5) are framed as "loss or damage to the amount of" a sum, so on a reading of the text the amount must be proved.
• Where Government or Local Authority property is damaged, Section 324(3) expressly covers it.

For the accused and defence advocate

• All limbs are bailable. For the non-cognizable limbs, Section 2(1)(o) BNSS means the police have no authority to arrest without a warrant.
• Test each element: the mental element (intent or knowledge of wrongful loss), the change to the property, and the diminution of value or utility. A disagreement about ownership alone is not a defence, because ownership is irrelevant (Explanation 2 and Indian Oil Corporation).
• Check the valuation. If the prosecution's figure is disputed, the charge may drop from Section 324(5) (cognizable, five years) to Section 324(4) or (3).
• Compounding: under Section 359(1) BNSS, the person to whom the loss or damage is caused may compound Sections 324(2) and 324(4), without the court's permission, when the only loss or damage is to a private person. Section 324(3) and Section 324(5) are not listed in either table in Section 359, so on a reading of the text they cannot be compounded.

Judgments that still matter

M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and Ors., [2006] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 704 (2006 INSC 452) — 20 July 2006. H.K. Sema and R.V. Raveendran JJ. (judgment by Raveendran J.) considered complaints alleging that NEPC India had removed engines and parts from two aircraft hypothecated to IOC. The Court set out the three ingredients of Section 425 IPC — intention or knowledge of wrongful loss or damage, destruction of or change in property, and the change destroying or diminishing its value or utility or affecting it injuriously — and held: "For the purpose of section 425, ownership or possession of the property are not relevant. Even if the property belongs to the accused himself, if the ingredients are made out, mischief is committed" (para 30). The allegations that removal of the engines diminished the value and utility of the aircraft, causing loss to IOC, which had the right to possess them, disclosed mischief. The Court held that theft, dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust were not made out, and set aside the High Court's order only insofar as it quashed the complaints under Sections 415 and 425 IPC, directing the Magistrates to proceed on those offences (para 31). The words construed are repeated in Section 324(1) BNS and its Explanation 2.

Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat — Supreme Court, 4 December 2008. Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma JJ. (judgment by Pasayat J.) dismissed an appeal against a conviction under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (para 14). The appellant had tilled land in the complainant's possession with tractors, destroying his sugarcane stems. The trial court's sentence for the Section 427 offence was rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500 (para 2). Referring to the definition in Section 425, the Court held that the evidence established the sugarcane stems "were totally destroyed by using a tractor. Therefore, Section 427 IPC is clearly established" (para 11). It directed that the appellant, who was stated to be suffering from paralysis, need not surrender for three months (para 13). Under Section 324 BNS, the tier for such facts would depend on the value of the loss proved.

Using older case law under Section 324. The operative words of Section 324(1) and its Explanations repeat Section 425 IPC, so, on a reading of the text, judgments construing those words remain relevant. Judgments on the fifty-rupee threshold in Section 427 IPC do not carry across.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred under it, and that proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, mischief committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 425 to 427 or 440 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars "a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence", so, on a reading of that Article, the six-month maximum in Section 324(2) and the five-year maximum in Section 324(5) 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 425 to 427 IPC? Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces them. Section 324(1) is the definition that was Section 425 IPC, Section 324(2) is the basic punishment that was Section 426, and Sections 324(3), (4) and (5) replace the single fifty-rupee damage tier of Section 427. Section 324(6) carries over Section 440 IPC, mischief after preparation for causing death or hurt.

What is the punishment for mischief under Section 324 BNS? Simple mischief under Section 324(2) BNS is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine, or both; Section 426 IPC allowed three months. Mischief causing loss or damage to any property, including Government or Local Authority property, carries up to one year (324(3)); loss or damage of twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh carries up to two years (324(4)); and one lakh rupees or upwards carries up to five years (324(5)), in each case with or without fine.

Is mischief a bailable offence under the BNS? Yes. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists every limb of Section 324 BNS as bailable. Sections 324(2), (3) and (4) are non-cognizable and triable by any Magistrate, while Section 324(5) (one lakh rupees or upwards) and Section 324(6) are cognizable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Can the police register an FIR for mischief without a Magistrate's order? Only for the cognizable limbs. Under the BNSS First Schedule, mischief causing loss or damage of one lakh rupees or upwards (Section 324(5) BNS) and mischief after preparation for causing death or hurt (Section 324(6)) are cognizable. The lower limbs, Sections 324(2) to (4), are non-cognizable, as Sections 426 and 427 IPC were under the CrPC First Schedule.

Can a mischief case be compromised under the BNSS? Partly. Section 359(1) BNSS allows Sections 324(2) and 324(4) BNS to be compounded by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused, without the court's permission, when the only loss or damage caused is to a private person. Sections 324(3), (5) and (6) are not listed. Section 320(1) CrPC listed Sections 426 and 427 IPC, so damage of one lakh rupees or upwards, compoundable under Section 427 IPC, is not compoundable under Section 324(5).

Can a person commit mischief by damaging his own property? Yes. Explanation 2 to Section 324(1) BNS, repeating Section 425 IPC, says mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who does it, or to that person and others jointly. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India (2006 INSC 452), the Supreme Court held at para 30 that for Section 425 ownership or possession of the property is not relevant.

Which law applies to mischief committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so on a reading of that provision earlier mischief is charged under Sections 425 to 427 or 440 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a heavier penalty than the law then in force, so, on a reading of that Article, the higher BNS maximums cannot be applied to earlier conduct.

Related

• Criminal trespass: IPC 441-448 vs BNS 329
• Criminal trespass and property disputes — BNS 329-334
• Theft: IPC 378-382 vs BNS 303-307
• Compromise in a criminal case — compounding under BNSS 359
• Section 320 CrPC vs Section 359 BNSS — Compounding of Offences
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• IPC to BNS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(36)-(37), 324 to 328 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 425 to 440 with footnotes.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 359 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 324 to 327 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 421 to 440 IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Ltd. (S_2006_3_704_728_EN.md); Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat (2008_16_1179_1185_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.