Section 320 punishes a person who dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers property to any person, or transfers it (or causes it to be transferred) without adequate consideration, intending to prevent — or knowing it to be likely that he will prevent — that property being distributed according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person. The punishment is imprisonment of not less than six months and up to two years, or fine, or both. The section descends from IPC Section 421; the six-month minimum term is new.
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 320 carries the “(Change)” marker in the concordance and corresponds to one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 421). Comparing the two statutory texts, the section is Substantively changed:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 320 | S.421 “Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution among creditors” | Substantively changed |
A word-by-word comparison of BNS Section 320 with IPC Section 421 shows two differences and no others. (1) BNS Section 320 adds, in the punishment clause, the words “shall not be less than six months but which”, so the imprisonment limb now reads “for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years”; IPC Section 421 read “for a term which may extend to two years”, with no minimum. The maximum (two years) and the alternatives “or with fine, or with both” are unchanged. (2) The BNS text has a comma after “thereby prevent” (“knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property”) which the IPC text does not have. The description of the offence itself — the acts, the required intention or knowledge, and the reference to creditors — is word for word the same, and so is the marginal heading.
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 320 deals with an attempt to put property out of the reach of creditors. Its ingredients fall into three groups. First, the accused must act dishonestly or fraudulently. Section 2(7) defines “dishonestly” as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, and Section 2(9) defines “fraudulently” as doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise; the section uses the two words as alternatives. Second, the accused must do one of the listed acts to any property: remove it, conceal it, deliver it to any person, or transfer it (or cause it to be transferred) to any person without adequate consideration. Third comes the purpose or knowledge: the act must be done intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person. Section 2 does not define “creditors” or “consideration”, and although it defines “movable property” in clause (21), it has no definition of “property” on its own; nor does Section 320 name the law under which the property would be distributed among creditors.
Two features of the wording deserve attention. The mental element has two forms: an intention to prevent the distribution, or knowledge that preventing it is a likely result of the act. The first is about what the accused wanted; the second is about what he knew to be likely. Neither form, as worded, adds a further requirement that creditors must actually have gone unpaid, and the wording does not mention any decree or pending proceeding. The creditors in view may be the accused’s own or those of “any other person”, so the section can apply where the creditors in view are those of someone other than the accused. Separately, the phrase “without adequate consideration” sits, as punctuated, after the transfer limb (“transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property”). The wording does not state whether it is meant to qualify only the transfer limb or the delivery limb as well, and a reader whose matter turns on that point should take advice.
The neighbouring sections should be distinguished from this one. Section 321 is concerned with preventing a debt or demand due to a person from being made available for creditors, not with removing or concealing property. Section 322 deals with signing, executing or becoming a party to a deed of transfer that contains a false statement of consideration or of the persons for whose benefit it operates. Section 323 covers dishonest or fraudulent concealment or removal of property (and assisting in it, and releasing a demand or claim), and its own words do not include the creditor-related intention that Section 320 requires; the marginal headings of the two sections are similar, and the words about creditors are what separate them. Mischief under Section 324 is a different kind of offence again: its illustration (d) describes a debtor who destroys his effects to defeat a creditor, whereas Section 320 speaks of removal, concealment, delivery or transfer.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple, as listed in Section 4(c)) for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, or fine, or both. This is the point at which the Sanhita differs from IPC Section 421: the six-month floor is new, and the two-year ceiling is unchanged. As worded, the minimum sits inside the imprisonment limb; the section also lists “fine” and “both” as alternatives. The BNSS First Schedule lists Section 320 as non-cognizable (BNSS Section 2(1)(o): a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant), bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Under BNSS Section 359(1) the offence is compoundable by the creditors who are affected, without the permission of the Court; Section 359 sets further conditions on compounding that should be read in full before it is relied on in any real case.
Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, or fine, or both. The amount of the fine is not fixed by the section; under Section 8(1) it is unlimited but shall not be excessive.
Yes, for the imprisonment limb: the term “shall not be less than six months but … may extend to two years”. The section also lists “fine” and “both” as alternatives; see the statutory text above. IPC Section 421 had no minimum term.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. Under BNSS Section 359(1) it is compoundable by the creditors who are affected, without the permission of the Court, subject to the other conditions of Section 359.
The accused must have acted dishonestly or fraudulently (Section 2(7) and 2(9)), and must have intended to prevent, or known it to be likely that he would thereby prevent, the distribution of the property according to law among creditors.
No. The section speaks of “his creditors or the creditors of any other person”.
Both use the words removal or concealment of property, but Section 320 requires the intention or knowledge about preventing distribution among creditors and lists delivery and transfer without adequate consideration as further acts. Section 323 has no creditor-related intention in its wording and carries a maximum of three years.
Two things only: Section 320 adds a minimum term of six months to the imprisonment limb (the two-year maximum is unchanged), and the BNS text has a comma after “thereby prevent”. The description of the offence is otherwise word for word the same.