Section 123 punishes administering, or causing to be taken, poison or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug or substance to a person, with intent to cause hurt, or with intent to commit or facilitate an offence, or knowing hurt is likely to result.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 123 to old IPC Section 328, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 123 | 328 | Exact |
Comparing the two texts word for word, Section 123 is reproduced without any substantive change from old IPC Section 328.
Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
This section covers administering poison or a stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome substance to a person, in three alternative mental-state scenarios: with intent to cause hurt directly, with intent to commit or facilitate a separate offence (such as robbery while the victim is drugged), or merely knowing that hurt is likely to result, without a specific intent to hurt.
This judgment relates to Section 123 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so is presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
Several people died in Kerala after drinking adulterated arrack sold from a depot run by the accused. The trial court convicted the person in charge of the depot both for the adulteration itself and, separately, for causing hurt by poison — the exact offence this section now covers — even though it had already found he had no idea the liquor was dangerous enough to kill anyone. The Supreme Court acquitted him of the poisoning charge specifically: a conviction under this section needs real, positive proof that the accused actually administered the harmful substance, with the guilty state of mind the section requires, not just that he happened to be the person in control of where it came from. Because that direct proof and mental element were missing here, this particular charge could not stand — even though his conviction for the separate adulteration offence was upheld.
Currency check: an older judgment (1994), genuinely on point and properly sourced; no overruling found in this review.
No. The section applies equally where the substance is administered with intent to commit or facilitate a separate offence, or merely knowing that hurt is likely to result, without a specific intent to cause hurt.
The statute's own wording focuses on the act of administering the substance with the specified intent or knowledge; the specific facts and evidence in a case determine whether actual hurt is also proven or required for a conviction.
No. Per the BNSS First Schedule, it is non-bailable and cognizable, triable by the Court of Session.