Section 290 punishes a person who, while pulling down, repairing or constructing a building, knowingly or negligently fails to take measures sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of that building or any part of it. The punishment is imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both. It descends from IPC Section 288, but the Sanhita adds “constructing” to the covered activities and raises the maximum fine from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 290 is marked Substantively changed — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with changes in wording and in the fine:
| BNS 290 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 290 | Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down, repairing or constructing buildings, etc. | S.288 “Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing buildings” | Substantively changed |
Comparing the two statutory texts word by word gives three differences. First, IPC Section 288 covered a person “in pulling down or repairing any building”; BNS Section 290 covers a person “in pulling down, repairing or constructing any building”, so constructing has been added (and the marginal heading now ends with “etc.”). Second, the IPC referred to omitting to take such order with the building; the BNS refers to omitting to take such measures with the building. Third, the maximum fine is raised from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees. The imprisonment limit (either description, up to six months) and the mental element (“knowingly or negligently”) are worded identically in both Acts.
Whoever, in pulling down, repairing or constructing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such measures with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 290 concerns omitted precautions by the people who carry out work on buildings. Its ingredients are: (1) the accused is engaged in pulling down, repairing or constructing a building; (2) the accused omits to take measures with that building; (3) the measures omitted are ones that would have been sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of the building or any part of it; and (4) the omission is knowing or negligent. The words “in pulling down, repairing or constructing” tie the offence to the period of the work; the section is about the hazards that demolition, repair and construction themselves create.
Two features of the wording deserve attention. The danger must be a probable danger to human life and it must come from the fall of the building or of part of it; a risk that is merely remote, or a risk to property alone, does not fit the text. And the standard of the precautions is that they be “sufficient” to guard against that danger — the section does not demand every conceivable safeguard, but it does condemn an omission to take measures that would have been sufficient. The mental element is alternative: the omission may be knowing (the person is aware of the danger and still leaves the measures untaken) or merely negligent (the person fails to take the care that the situation called for). Proof of a deliberate wish to harm anyone is not required.
Compared with the old law, the Sanhita has widened the section to cover constructing a building, in addition to pulling down and repairing, and has used the word “measures” where the IPC said “order”. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to six months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is non-cognizable (under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and under BNSS Section 174(2) no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try it or commit it for trial), bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and it is not among the offences that BNSS Section 359 allows to be compounded. It is worth separating this section from Section 289 (negligent conduct with machinery) and Section 291 (negligent conduct with an animal), which address different sources of danger, and from Section 292, the residuary public-nuisance penalty.
It applies to all three. The Sanhita's wording is “pulling down, repairing or constructing any building”. The old IPC Section 288 mentioned only pulling down and repairing, so “constructing” is an addition in the BNS text.
The section speaks of omitting to take measures sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of the building or part of it. Its text does not require that an injury has occurred. If a person is actually injured or killed, other provisions of the Sanhita dealing with hurt or death may also have to be considered.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. Bail can be claimed as of right (BNSS Section 478). It is not listed in either table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.
Either is enough. “Knowingly” points to awareness that the danger exists and that the measures are being omitted; “negligently” points to a failure to take due care even without such awareness. The section treats both as sufficient for the offence.
Three things changed: “constructing” was added to the covered activities, “such order” became “such measures”, and the maximum fine rose from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000. The six-month imprisonment limit is unchanged.