IPC 491 vs BNS 357: Neglect of Helpless Person Changes (2026)

In India, Section 357 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 491 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from 1 July 2024. The offence, the three-month maximum term and the classification are unchanged; the only textual change is the maximum fine, which rises from two hundred rupees to five thousand rupees.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Offence	Punishment (BNS text)	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
491	357	Being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or supply the wants of a helpless person, and voluntarily omitting to do so	Imprisonment of either description up to 3 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both	Non-cognizable; bailable; any Magistrate	Modified (fine ₹200 → ₹5,000)
490, 492	—	Other breaches of contracts of service	—	—	Already repealed in 1925; no BNS counterpart

The CrPC First Schedule entry for Section 491 IPC read "Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 200 rupees, or both", non-cognizable, bailable, triable by any Magistrate. The BNSS First Schedule entry for Section 357 BNS reads "Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both", with the same three classification columns.

What changed

Modified — fine: "fine which may extend to two hundred rupees" becomes "fine which may extend to five thousand rupees". A whitespace-normalised word-by-word comparison of the two sections shows no other change in the operative text.
Identical — heading, ingredients and term of imprisonment: the marginal heading, the description of the helpless person ("by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness"), the words "voluntarily omits so to do" and "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months" are unchanged.
Minor edit — placement: in the IPC, Section 491 was the only operative section of Chapter XIX, "Of the criminal breach of contracts of service"; Sections 490 and 492 had been repealed by the Workmen's Breach of Contract (Repealing) Act, 1925 (3 of 1925). The BNS drops that chapter and places Section 357, under its own sub-heading, as the last section of Chapter XIX, "Of criminal intimidation, insult, annoyance, defamation, etc.", immediately before the repeal-and-savings section (Section 358). The chapter move does not change the offence.
Identical — classification and compounding: the BNSS First Schedule and the Section 359(1) BNSS compounding table treat Section 357 BNS exactly as the CrPC treated Section 491 IPC (see "What this means in practice").

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 491 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

... voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

Extract, Section 357 BNS:

Whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of any person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants, voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

How it works — the ingredients

Section 357 BNS has four elements. Each must be shown.

A lawful contract — the accused must be "bound by a lawful contract". The obligation comes from the contract, not from a family relationship as such. On a reading of the text, a person with no contractual obligation to the helpless person falls outside Section 357, whatever other duty the law may impose.
A duty to attend on or supply wants — the contract must be one "to attend on or to supply the wants of" the other person. The two limbs are alternatives: personal attendance, or supplying wants (food, medicine and the like).
A helpless person — the person cared for must be, "by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness", helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants. The cause of helplessness must be one of the four listed.
A voluntary omission — the accused must "voluntarily omit" to do what the contract requires. Two definitions in the BNS shape this element:
- Section 2(33) BNS: a person causes an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means he intended, or by means which, at the time, "he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it".
- Section 3(4) BNS: "words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions". Section 2(15) BNS says a person is "legally bound to do" whatever it is illegal in him to omit, and "illegal" includes anything which "furnishes ground for a civil action". On a reading of these provisions together, an omission to perform a lawful contract can be an "illegal omission" of the kind Section 357 punishes.

The section does not require that harm actually result. On a reading of the text, the offence is complete on the voluntary omission, provided the other three elements are present. Where the omission causes death or hurt, other BNS offences may be engaged; Section 357 does not displace them.

A worked example (not an Illustration in the Act): A contracts with the family of B, who is bedridden by disease, to attend on B during the day. A stops coming for several days without notice, knowing B cannot feed himself. On a reading of Section 357, each element is present: a lawful contract, a duty to attend on B, B's helplessness from disease, and A's voluntary omission. If A was prevented from attending by an accident, the omission would not be voluntary.

Neighbouring provisions:

Section 93 BNS (formerly Section 317 IPC) punishes a parent or person "having the care of" a child under twelve who exposes or leaves the child "with the intention of wholly abandoning such child", with up to seven years. It turns on intention to abandon and on care of a child, not on a contract.
Sections 490 and 492 IPC, the other two sections of the old chapter, were repealed in 1925 and have no BNS counterpart.

What this means in practice

For the person harmed, or the family that engaged the carer

The offence is non-cognizable. Under Section 174(1) BNSS, the officer in charge of a police station records the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refers the informant to the Magistrate; the officer must also forward the daily diary report of such cases fortnightly to the Magistrate (a requirement Section 155(1) CrPC did not contain). Under Section 174(2), police may not investigate without the order of a Magistrate.
A complaint can be filed before a Magistrate, who may take cognizance "upon receiving a complaint of facts" under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS.
Time limit: Section 514(2)(b) BNSS fixes the period of limitation at "one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year". Section 357 carries a three-month maximum, so, on a reading of that provision, cognizance must be taken within one year. Section 468(2)(b) CrPC set the same period.
Compromise: the Table under Section 359(1) BNSS lists "Criminal breach of contract of service", Section 357, as compoundable by "The person with whom the offender has contracted". No court permission is needed. Section 320(1) CrPC listed Section 491 IPC in identical terms. On a reading of the text, the person who compounds is the contracting party, which may be a family member rather than the helpless person.

For the accused and the defence advocate

The offence is bailable. Under Section 478(1) BNSS, a person accused of an offence other than a non-bailable offence who is prepared to give bail "shall be released on bail"; the proviso allows, and for an indigent person unable to furnish surety requires, discharge on a bond instead of a bail bond. Because the offence is non-cognizable, a police officer "has no authority to arrest without warrant" (Section 2(1)(o) BNSS).
Trial: any Magistrate may try it. Section 283(2) BNSS lets "the Magistrate" (on a reading of the text, a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class named in Section 283(1)), after giving the accused a reasonable opportunity of being heard and for reasons recorded in writing, try summarily any offence not punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding three years, and no appeal lies against the decision to try summarily. Section 260(1)(i) CrPC allowed summary trial of offences with a maximum not exceeding two years, but only by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate or a specially empowered Magistrate of the first class. A three-month offence fits both thresholds.
Defences turn on the four elements: no lawful contract, a contract that did not cover attendance or supply of wants, a person who was not helpless for one of the listed reasons, or an omission that was not voluntary.

For the investigating officer

Record the information under Section 174(1) BNSS and do not investigate without a Magistrate's order (Section 174(2)). Where the same facts also disclose a cognizable offence, Section 174(4) deems the whole case cognizable.

Judgments that still matter

No Supreme Court judgment construing Section 491 IPC or Section 357 BNS was found. Searches of the local Supreme Court summary corpus for the section numbers and for the section's operative phrases, and a Veritect case-law search of the Supreme Court collections, returned nothing on this offence. This page therefore cites no case law. That is a statement about what was found, not a finding that no judgment exists; High Court decisions were not searched.

On a reading of the text, because Section 357 BNS repeats every operative word of Section 491 IPC except the fine, any judgment construing the ingredients of Section 491 would remain relevant to Section 357.

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, an omission before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 491 IPC. Under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, matters pending on that date continue under the CrPC. 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 ₹5,000 fine ceiling 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 491 IPC? Section 357 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 491 IPC from 1 July 2024. It punishes a person who is bound by a lawful contract to attend on or supply the wants of a helpless person and voluntarily omits to do so. The words are the same as Section 491 except the fine.

What is the punishment under Section 357 BNS? Section 357 BNS provides imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. Section 491 IPC had the same three-month maximum but capped the fine at two hundred rupees.

Is the offence under Section 357 BNS bailable and cognizable? The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists Section 357 BNS as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 491 IPC the same way, so the classification has not changed.

Who is a helpless person under Section 357 BNS? Section 357 BNS covers a person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants. The section applies only where the accused is bound by a lawful contract to attend on or supply the wants of that person.

Can a case under Section 357 BNS be settled? Yes. The Table under Section 359(1) BNSS lists Section 357 BNS, criminal breach of contract of service, as compoundable by the person with whom the offender has contracted, without the court's permission. Section 320(1) CrPC listed Section 491 IPC the same way.

How does a complainant start a case under Section 357 BNS? Because the offence is non-cognizable, Section 174(1) BNSS requires the officer in charge of a police station to record the substance of the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate, and Section 174(2) bars investigation without a Magistrate's order. A complaint can be made to a Magistrate, who may take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS.

Which law applies to a breach committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties and punishments incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if it had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text earlier conduct is charged under Section 491 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time, so, on a reading of that Article, the higher Rs 5,000 fine cannot be imposed for earlier conduct.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text, cross-checked with the official text): Sections 2(15), 2(33), 3(4), 93, 357 and 358, and the Chapter XIX heading.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Chapter XIX, Sections 490 (repealed), 491 and 492 (repealed).
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(1)(o), 174, 210(1), 283(1)–(2), 359(1), 478(1), 514(2) and 531(2)(a), and the First Schedule entry for Section 357 BNS.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 155, 260(1), 320(1) and 468(2), and the First Schedule entry for Section 491 IPC.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
Judgments: none cited; see "Judgments that still matter".

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.

Section 491 IPC vs Section 357 BNS — Breach of Contract to Attend on and Supply Wants of Helpless Person