Monday, July 1, 2024

19 Chapters and 358 Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaces 23 chapters and 511 Sections of Indian Penal Code

On 11 August 2023, Minister of Home Affairs, introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha. It was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on August 24, 2023, which suggested revisions and recommendations. The report of the parliamentary committee was prepared after 12 meetings amidst criticism from the opposition. The report had three dissenting notes. The 405 page long report was presented to the Parliament on December 4, 2023. The report contains Note of Dissent from pages 55-199 (64-208). 

In his note on dissent, Digvijay Singh, Member of the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs pointed out that BNS Bill, "Enhances the Union Government's policing powers without any checks and balances - The changes that have been made to the existing laws also enhance the coercive powers of State and its instrumentalities which allow for the exercise of its powers at a hitherto unknown scale at which these powers can be exercised by the State. For example, the laws in general have expanded the scope of police's power without introducing measures to keep its activities in check. From the data of the Government, provided as a response to Unstarred Question No. 1459 for 26.07.2022 raised in parliament, one can see that 4484 persons were victims of Custodial Deaths in India between 2020-2022 . While the Bill seeks to enhance the time for which a person can be kept in police custody, there exists no protective measures to provide safety to the accused persons under police custody which is bound to adversely affect the safety of detainees."

In his note on dissent, N. R. Elango, Member of the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs wrote: "The necessity of repealing The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not made clear." He wrote: In "the statement of objects and reasons of the bill at paragraph 4, it is stated that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is being repealed to streamline provisions relating to offences and penalties and to deal effectively with the offences of organized crime and terrorist activities. It is also stated that the fines and punishments for various offences have been suitably enhanced. It is also stated at para 5 that the “notes on clauses explain the various provisions of the bill”. But none of the notes on clauses is explaining anything, but they are mere repetition of the clauses. It is not made clear why punishment of several sections was increased, the reasons behind such increased punishment and the rational of it are not explained in the notes on clauses. It seems randomly punishments are increased for few offences without assigning any reason. But for rearranging the sections, enhancing punishments without reasons and omitting sections 124A, 377 and 497 IPC, no new definition, explanation is given in the new bill. Such an exercise of merely rearranging the section will lead to lot of confusion to understand what is the new section for the offences vis-a-vis Indian Penal Code, 1860. This will take at least 5 – 10 years for the lawyers and the judges to correlate them. The difficulties of the investigating agency will be much more and we cannot expect every constable to carry a comparative chart of Indian Penal Code and The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, I suggest that the arrangement of sections should be maintained as in IPC,1860 and the amendments can be brought to the
sections wherever it is required, instead of repealing the entire Indian Penal Code, 1860 and enacting The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."

He further wrote: "I find no new clause that imbibe Indian thought process and the Indian soul. This bill is also not having any citizen centric approach. I am of the view that there is no provision introduced, no new definition of the offences is given except adding or deleting some words in the existing provisions, adding new offences, which are already punishable under special enactments, enhancing the punishment of few offences without any rationale. This bill achieves nothing."

He asserted: "I state that in most of the definition clauses the word ‘denotes’ is sought to be amended as ‘means’. The word ‘denotes’ is having wider meaning than that of ‘means’. Lot of confusion will prevail if the word ‘denotes’ is replaced with ‘means’. In a penal statute while defining the words it is always better to have a wider meaning than that of a narrower meaning. Hence, in all those definitions where the word ‘denotes’ is replaced with ‘means’, the word ‘denotes’ shall be retained."

Elango referred to the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Mithu Vs. State of Punjab to the effect that there is no intelligible differentia in sentencing a person only with death sentence under section 303 of IPC. The BNS attempts an alternate sentence to the death is provided, namely imprisonment for life which means imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s life. This will fall foul of the judgement in Mithu vs State of Punjab. He opined that this clause should be omitted.

He wrote that certain offences defined under BNS are already defined and punishable under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. UAPA, 1967 is a Special Enactment, it is having a special procedure with regard to investigation, bail etc. If the same provisions are incorporated in the BNS, it will cause lot of confusion in the matter of registration of a case, investigation, inquiry and trial of a particular offence. I apprehend that the offenders who fall under both the enactments will attempt to escape the rigor of UAPA, 1967. There is an overlapping between UAPA and BNS and such overlapping will cause confusions. How a Police officer, though he is a senior officer can decide under which enactment a person is to be prosecuted. This is to be decided by the court.

In his note on dissent, Derek. O' Brien, Member of the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs wrote: "The fact that approximately 93% of the existing Criminal Law remains unaltered, 18 out of 22 chapters have been copy pasted in these new bills implies that the pre-existing legislation could have been effortlessly modified to incorporate these specific changes. It appears that there was no requirement for an entirely new legislative framework, mostly for the purpose of renumbering and reorganizing the existing legal provisions....Suspicion is generated whether the effort is in vain and malafide." 

He pointed out that "In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. Ranbir Singh, the former Vice Chancellor of the National Law University, Delhi, to undertake a comprehensive review of the three codes of criminal law. However, it is essential to note that this committee was marked by a striking lack of diversity. All its members were male, and what's more, they shared not only a common gender but also a similar social identity, professional background, and experience. Regrettably, the committee lacked representation from various marginalized groups, including women, Dalits, religious minorities, adivasis, LGBTQ individuals, and those with disabilities. The absence of such diverse perspectives is a significant concern, particularly when addressing matters of such magnitude and societal impact. In a country as diverse as India, where a wide range of perspectives, interests, and concerns need to be addressed, diverse and extensive stakeholder consultation is essential to ensure that laws are fair, effective, and capable of addressing the complex and multifaceted challenges facing the nation. It not only enhances the quality of legislation but also promotes a more inclusive and accountable democratic process....Lakhs of stakeholders including judges, lawyers, students, paralegals, will have to relearn the laws. Relearning new laws can disrupt established legal practices and procedures, potentially causing confusion and delays in the legal system. Significant resources may be required to update educational materials, provide training, and ensure stakeholders are adequately prepared to work with the new laws. Relearning new laws can be a complex and resource-intensive process that has a significant impact on the legal community, potentially affecting the delivery of legal services and the consistency of legal decisions.
In any case, the government has only sought inputs after the introduction of this bill. By seeking input before introducing a bill, the government can involve a broader range of perspectives, including those of experts, affected communities, and the general public. This would have ensured that diverse voices are considered in the lawmaking process, promoting inclusivity and democratic values." 

With regard to the provision in the BNS on the "Commutation of a sentence", he wrote: "The clause gives the executive the powers to commute an offender’s sentence punishment for any other punishment. Allowing the executive to commute sentences can blur the separation of powers in a government. It gives the executive branch, which is responsible for enforcing the law, a role in altering or mitigating the legal punishments determined by the judiciary. This could potentially lead to an imbalance of power and an infringement on the judiciary's independence. Executive decisions might be swayed by electoral or popularity concerns rather than solely focusing on justice and the merits of individual cases. Commutations can be seen as undermining the authority and decisions of the judiciary. It may give the impression that the executive branch can override or second-guess the judiciary's determinations, eroding trust in the legal system."

With regard to the provision in the BNS on the "Solitary Confinement", he wrote:"This clause should be reconsidered as solitary confinement is inhumane. Research has shown that solitary confinement is not an effective tool for deterrence or rehabilitation. It does not reduce recidivism or promote positive behaviour change; instead, it can increase aggression and antisocial behaviour. It has been shown to have serious detrimental effects on individuals' mental and physical well-being, and it raises ethical and human rights concerns. The characterization of solitary confinement as a brutal type of incarceration by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan highlights the court's recognition of the severe and adverse effects of solitary confinement on individuals."

With regard to the provision in the BNS on the "Promise to Marry", he wrote:"Relationships and decisions about marriage are deeply personal matters that should be left to the individuals involved, subject to only some basic safeguards that may be consensually instituted by the society Criminalizing a Promise to Marry can be seen as an undue intrusion into individuals' Right to Privacy and autonomy. Determining whether a promise to marry has been made can be subjective and challenging to prove. Intentions can change over time, and proving that a promise was genuinely made with the intention to marry can be difficult. Defining what constitutes a legally binding Promise to Marry can be vague and open to interpretation. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistencies in enforcement and judgments. Criminalizing a Promise to Marry can be viewed as an unwarranted intrusion into the fundamental Right to Privacy and personal autonomy, which are cherished principles in a democratic society. In this context, a more nuanced and rights-based approach to addressing matters related to promises to marry would be both pragmatic and respectful of individual freedoms and choices."

With regard to the provision in the BNS on "Kidnapping and begging", he wrote: "The clause should exclude the exception of lawful guardian of such child. Even guardians who wrongfully push children into begging should be rigorously punished. Excluding the exception of lawful guardians in a clause punishing those who wrongfully push children into begging is essential to safeguard the rights and well-being of vulnerable children. It sends a strong message that all individuals, regardless of their legal relationship with the child, will be held accountable for such harmful actions, acting as a powerful deterrent against child exploitation. This approach prioritizes the child's best interests, prevents potential legal loopholes, and aligns with international human rights standards, fostering a child-centered and protective legal framework that leaves no room for evading responsibility in cases of child exploitation."

With reference to the provision in the BNS on "Sedition law", he wrote: "I would like to include a passage from the report. 'The Committee compliments the Government in deleting the term ‘sedition’ from criminal law by rephrasing it without compromising the security of the state. The Committee finds it as a very progressive development.' The Report acknowledges the fact that the Sedition law has just been paraphrased and retained. The 22nd Law Commission suggested that sedition should be well defined. The Union government decided to do the opposite of that. The provision in the new bill gives it such a broad definition that it can encompass any act in the name of endangering the unity and integrity of India. It leaves a lot of room for discretion which is the opposite of what was advised by the law commission. Clause 150 talks about Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Sedition gets a sinister backfoot entry in the proposed legal regime. This broad definition could potentially infringe on individuals' rights to free expression and peaceful dissent. The broad and vaguely worded sedition provisions can create a chilling effect on free speech and peaceful protest. Individuals may self-censor their opinions and criticisms, fearing legal consequences, which can undermine democratic values and civil liberties. Our concerns are rooted in the potential for misuse and abuse of the redefined sedition law. Such broad and discretionary provisions can be employed to stifle legitimate dissent and criticism, limiting freedom of expression and potentially infringing on individuals' rights."

Derek wrote with regard to "definition of life sentence". He wrote: The current definition of "imprisonment for life" within the BNS is not explicitly clear. It appears to be using the term "imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life." However, in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 53, the term "imprisonment for life" is used without specifying whether it means "imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life" or if it is equivalent to a "whole life sentence." There needs to be clarity about whether the convicts are expected to remain in prison for the entirety of their natural life or are eligible for release. The proposed definition of "imprisonment for life" in the BNS is not explicitly
clear, and it differs from how "imprisonment for life" is generally understood in the context of the Indian Penal Code. To avoid confusion and ensure legal clarity, the definition in the BNS be aligned with the understanding that "imprisonment for life" means a "whole life sentence" unless otherwise specified. This would help in harmonizing the definitions and interpretations across different legal contexts in India. 

With regard to "Offences Relating to Elections", he wrote: "One of the general patterns in contemporary India’s criminal law is that offences that are particularly difficult to regulate and especially elaborate in
their organisation internally while having a large-scale impact on society are addressed by ‘special statutes’. These special statutes while being harsh in punishment are rigorous in the procedural safeguards, they offer the accused. The emphasis being that there are checks and balances present in the quest of
the state to prosecute and the efforts of the accused to defend herself. Any detraction from the procedural protections that general criminal law offers, will have checks in place in these special statutes. Offences related to elections should be on Representation of People Act. Similarly with UAPA, the special legislation should remain and amended if need be. But it should not be subsumed in the IPC."

With regard to clause on "Defamation", he wrote: There should be a limitation on filing cases for defamation. Imposing a time limitation on defamation claims helps protect the fundamental principle of
free speech. Without such limitations, individuals or organizations could potentially bring defamation claims many years after an alleged defamatory statement was made. This could have a chilling effect on free expression and public discourse, as people may become reluctant to express their opinions or
engage in critical discussions for fear of facing legal action at any time in the future."

With regard to clause on "Conveying person by water for hire in unsafe or overloaded vessel", he wrote: Looking at the gravity of the offence, punishment should be increased that from 6 months to 3 years." 

With regard to clauses on "Fouling water of public spring or reservoir" and "Sale of adulterated drugs", he wrote: "Looking at the gravity of the offence, punishment should be increased." In medical negligence cases, the standard of care expected of healthcare professionals is crucial. Punishment should be based on whether the healthcare provider's actions or decisions deviated from the accepted standard of care within the medical community. Not all adverse outcomes in medicine are the result of negligence. Hence the punishment should be reduced from 7 years to 5 years. With regard to clause on "Refusing to sign statement", he wrote: Requiring individuals to sign statements under the threat of imprisonment or fines can be seen as coercive and may result in individuals signing statements against their will. This can undermine the voluntariness of the statement and potentially lead to false or coerced confessions. Hence this provision should be reconsidered."

On 12 December 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 was withdrawn.

On 12 December 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 was introduced in Lok Sabha without complying with the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014 which required justification for its enactment, financial implications and the estimation of the laws’ impact. On 20 December 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 was passed by the Lok Sabha. On 21 December 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita bill, 2023 was passed by the Rajya Sabha. On 25 December 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 received the assent of the President of India. BNS and the the two other criminal laws were passed in the winter session of the Parliament in 2023 in the face of opposition’s bitter protest over the suspension of 146 legislators from both Houses. This 102 page long law is to come into force from July 1, 2024.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), several state governments and lawyers organisations including State Bar Councils have sought postponement of the implementation of the BNS and two other criminal laws. PUCL pointed out that Clause 104(2) of the BNS violates Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution which says “no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”.

Indira Jaising, a noted jurist wrote to the Union minister of law and justice seeking postponement of the implementation of the new criminal laws to factor in inputs from all the stakeholders including the judiciary at all levels and investigation agencies. She drew the attention of the minister towards the pendency of cases drawing on the data from the National Judicial Data Grid, 34,180,141 criminal cases at the district and taluka courts are pending in India. 1,755,946 criminal cases are pending in the high courts. At the Supreme Court 18,049 (less than one year old) cases are pending. The new criminal laws will result 30 percent increase in criminal litigation. It is all set to create two parallel sets of laws since the criminal justice system is a combination of both substantive and procedural laws. 

There are several provisions in these laws which consolidate powers introduced by the colonial powers. For instance, Section 113 (terrorist acts) of the BNS unmindful of the fact that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 already deals with it. It is intriguing as to why create a general law provision when UAPA, a special law already exists in this regard.

The BNS retains the marital rape exception. It retains the value laden phrase ‘outraging the modesty of women’ instead of replacing it with the gender-neutral term ‘sexual assault’. It provides inadequate protection to victims of non-consensual intimate imagery. It does not include any provision for offences involving rape of males or of transgender individuals. The provision for offence for acts endangering ‘sovereignty or unity and integrity of India’, is ambiguous, with the potential to curtail freedom of speech or to stifle dissent. It is noteworthy that 20 new offences have been added and 19 provisions in the repealed IPC have been dropped. The punishment of imprisonment has been increased for 33 offences, and fines have been increased for 83 offences. A mandatory minimum punishment has been introduced for 23 offences. A sentence of community service has been introduced for six offences.

In general, like IPC, BNS deals with offences against the body. It has retained the provisions of the IPC on murder, abetment of suicide, assault and causing grievous hurt. It has added new offences such as organised crime, terrorism, and murder or grievous hurt by a group on certain grounds.

Like IPC, it deals with sexual offences against women. It has retained the provisions of the IPC on rape, voyeurism, stalking and insulting the modesty of a woman. It has increased the threshold for the victim to be classified as a major, in the case of gang rape, from 16 to 18 years of age.

Like IPC, it deals with offences against property. It has retained the provisions of the IPC on theft, robbery, burglary and cheating. It has added new offences such as cybercrime and financial fraud. The fact is that it was already incorporated in the IPC through amendment. 

Like IPC, it deals with the offences against the state. The BNS creates an impression about removal of sedition as an offence. The fact is that it was been brought in as a new offence for acts endangering India's sovereignty, unity and integrity. 

Like IPC, it deals with offences against the public.

The BNS has 19 Chapters and 358 Sections. 174 Sections of IPC have been changed, 8 new Sections added and 22 Sections repealed.

Chapter 1 has Sections 1 to 3 which deals with the Preliminary including definitions (2) and General explanations (3).
Chapter 2  has Sections 4 to 13 which deals with Punishments.
Chapter 3  has Sections 14 to 44 which deals with General Exceptions (14-33) and the Right to Private Defence (34 to 44).
Chapter 4
has Sections 45 to 62 which deals with Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy and Attempt.
Chapter 5
has Sections 63 to 99 which deals with Offences against Women and Children including Sexual Offences (63 to 79), Criminal Force and Assault against Women (74 to 79), Offences relating to Marriage (80 to 92) and Causing of Miscarriage and including offences against child (93-99) like Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, of age, by parent or person having care of it Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body, Hiring, employing or engaging a child to commit an offence, Procuration of child, Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years of age with intent to steal from its person, Selling child for purposes of prostitution, Buying child for purposes of prostitution.
Chapter 6 has Sections 100 to 146 which deals with Offences Affecting the Human Body including Offences Affecting Life (100 to 113), Hurt (114 to 127), Criminal Force and Assault (128 to 136), Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour (137 to 146).
Chapter 7 has Sections 147 to 158 which deals with Offences Against the State.
Chapter 8 has Sections 159 to 168 which deals with Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force
Chapter 9 has Sections 169 to 177 which deals with Offences Relating to Elections
Chapter 10 has Sections 178 to 188 which deals with Offences Relating to Coins, Bank Notes, Currency Notes and Government Stamps
Chapter 11 has Sections 189 to 197 which deals with Offences Against the Public Tranquility
Chapter 12 has Sections 198 to 205 which deals with Offences by Or Relating to Public Servants
Chapter 13
has Sections 206 to 226 which deals with Contempt of Lawful Authority of Public Servants
Chapter 14 has Sections 227 to 269 which deals with False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice.
Chapter 15  has Sections 270 to 297 which deals with Offences affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convince, Decency and Morals
Chapter 16  has Sections 298 to 302 which deals with Offences Relating to Religion
Chapter 17 has Sections 303 to 334  which deals with Offences against Property including Theft (303), Extortion (304), Theft in a dwelling house, or means of transportation or place of worship (305), Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master(306), Theft after preparation made for causing death,
hurt or restraint in order to committing of theft (307), Extortion (308), Robbery and Dacoity (309 to 313), Criminal Misappropriation of Property (314 and 315), Criminal Breach of Trust (316), Receiving of Stolen Property (317), Cheating (318 and 319), Fraudulent Deeds and Dispositions of Property (320 to 323), Mischief (324 to 328) and Criminal Trespass (329 to 334).
Chapter 18 has Sections 335 to 350 which deals with Offences Relating to Documents and to Property Marks.
Chapter 19 has Sections 351 to 358 which deals with Criminal Intimidation, Insult, Annoyance, Defamation, etc including Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance (349 to 353), Breach of peace (352) Public Mischief (353) Defamation (356), breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of the helpless person (357) and Repeal and Savings (358).

Section 358 reads: "(1) The Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Code referred to in sub-section (1), it shall not affect,—(a) the previous operation of the Code so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Code so repealed; or (c) any penalty, or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed against the Code so repealed; or (d) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, or punishment; or (e) any proceeding, investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed. (3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Code shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita. (4) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of the repeal."

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has 23 chapters and 511 sections. The 119 page long IPC came into operation on 1 January 1, 1862. It stated that "it is expedient to provide a General Penal Code for British India. It is enacted as follows :—1. This Act shall be called The Indian Penal Code, and shall take effect on Ist day of [January 1862] throughout the whole of the Territories which are or may become vested in her Majesty by the Statute 21 and 22 Victoria, chapter 106, entitled "An Act for the better Government of

India"* except the Settlement of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca. Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise foe every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within the said Territories on or after the said 1st day of [Jan, 1862]."

It also stated that  "within and throughout'' British India, the Penal Code is applicable to all persons thus made subject to tills authority of the Goveror-General of India in Council. Whether such persons are the subjects of Her Majesty or the subjects of a foreign stale, they all owe obedience to the law. A foreigner who enters the British territories and thus accepts the protection of our laws, virtually gives an assurance of his fidelity and obedience to them and submits himself to their operation. All existing penal laws whatsoever, except such as are referred to in the last section of this chapter, are superseded by the Code to this extent, that persons liable to punishment under any of the provisions of the Code cannot be punished by any other law. The words ''and not otherwise'* seem virtually to repeal all former laws for the punishment of any offence which is made punishable by this law. But if there are acts or omissions made penal by any existing law, and no provision of this Code is found to reach them, that law will continue at present in force. Offences committed prior to the 1st of January, 1862, will not come under the Code, at whatever time the offender may be arrested or tried. Any person liable, by any law passed by the Governor General of India in Council, to be tried for an offence committed beyond the limits of the said Territories, shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond the said Territories, in the same manner as if such act had been committed within the said Territories.

Chapter I has Sections 1 to 5 which provides Introduction including definitions
Chapter II has Sections 6 to 52 which deals with  General Explanations
Chapter III has Sections 53 to 75 which deals with Punishments
Chapter IV has Sections 76 to 106 which deals with General Exceptions and of the Right of Private Defence (Sections 96 to 106)
Chapter V has Sections 107 to 120  which deals with Abetment
Chapter VA has Sections 120A to 120B which deals with Criminal Conspiracy
Chapter VI  has Sections 121 to 130 which deals with Offences against the State
Chapter VII has Sections 131 to 140  which deals with Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force
Chapter VIII  has Sections 141 to 160 which deals with Offences against the Public Tranquillity
Chapter IX has Sections 161 to 171 which deals with Offences by or relating to Public Servants
Chapter IXA has Sections 171A to 171 which deals with Offences Relating to Elections
Chapter X has Sections 172 to 190 which deals with Contempts of Lawful Authority of Public Servants
Chapter XI has Sections 191 to 229 which deals with False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Chapter XII has Sections 230 to 263 which deals with Offences relating to coin and Government Stamps
Chapter XIII has Sections 264 to 267 which deals with Offences relating to Weight and Measures
Chapter XIV has Sections 268 to 294 which deals with Offences affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals.
Chapter XV has Sections 295 to 298 which deals with Offences relating to Religion
Chapter XVI has Sections 299 to 377 which deals with Offences affecting the Human Body including Offences Affecting Life including murder, culpable homicide (Sections 299 to 311), Causing of Miscarriage, of Injuries to Unborn Children, of the Exposure of Infants, and of the Concealment of Births (Sections 312 to 318), Hurt (Sections 319 to 338), Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement (Sections 339 to 348), Criminal Force and Assault (Sections 349 to 358), Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour (Sections 359 to 374) and Sexual Offences including rape and Sodomy (Sections 375 to 377)
Chapter XVII has Sections 378 to 462 which deals with Offences Against Property including Theft (Sections 378 to 382), Extortion (Sections 383 to 389), Robbery and Dacoity (Sections 390 to 402),  Criminal Misappropriation of Property (Sections 403 to 404), Criminal Breach of Trust (Sections 405 to 409), Receiving of Stolen Property (Sections 410 to 414), Cheating (Section 415 to 420), Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of Property (Sections 421 to 424), Mischief (Sections 425 to 440) and Criminal Trespass (Sections 441 to 462)
Chapter XVIII has Section 463 to 489 -E which deals with Offences relating to Documents and Property Marks including Offences relating to Documents (Section 463 to 477-A), Offences relating to Property and Other Marks (Sections 478 to 489) and Offences relating to Currency Notes and Bank Notes (Sections 489A to 489E)
Chapter XIX has Sections 490 to 492 which deals with Criminal Breach of Contracts of Service
Chapter XX has Sections 493 to 498 which deals with Offences related to marriage
Chapter XXA has Sections 498A which deals with Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband
Chapter XXI has Sections 499 to 502 which deals with Defamation
Chapter XXII has Sections 503 to 510 which deals with Criminal intimidation, Insult and Annoyance
Chapter XXIII  has Section 511 which deals with Attempts to Commit Offences 

No comments: