Section 321 punishes a person who dishonestly or fraudulently prevents any debt or demand due to himself, or to any other person, from being made available according to law for payment of his debts or the debts of that other person. The punishment is imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both. The section is word for word the same as IPC Section 422.
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 321 carries no “Change” marker in the concordance and corresponds to one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 422). Comparing the two statutory texts, the wording is identical, and Lexovia classes the section as Exact:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 321 | S.422 “Dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison of BNS Section 321 with IPC Section 422 shows no difference: the offence (dishonestly or fraudulently preventing any debt or demand due to himself or to any other person from being made available according to law for payment of his debts or the debts of such other person) and the punishment (imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both) are the same in both Acts. The marginal heading is also the same, and the concordance carries no Change marker for this section.
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently prevents any debt or demand due to himself or to any other person from being made available according to law for payment of his debts or the debts of such other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 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 321 is concerned with money or claims owed to someone, rather than with physical property. The ingredients are these. First, the accused must act dishonestly or fraudulently, as those words are defined in Section 2(7) (intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another) and Section 2(9) (intention to defraud). Second, the accused must prevent a debt or demand due to himself or to any other person. Third, the effect must be that the debt or demand is prevented from being made available according to law. Fourth, the purpose is payment of his debts or the debts of such other person. The section is worded in parallel: a debt or demand due “to himself” is paired with “his debts”, and one due to “any other person” with “the debts of such other person”; the words “such other person” point to the debts of that other person. Section 2 does not define “debt”, “demand” or “creditors”.
The section names only one act — “prevents” — and does not list the ways in which a debt or demand may be kept from being available. It also does not name the legal route through which a debt is made available for payment of debts; it says only “according to law”. Unlike Section 320, it contains no separate limb about intention or knowledge of the effect on creditors: the dishonest or fraudulent state of mind attaches directly to the act of preventing, and the reference to payment of debts reads as describing what the debt or demand would otherwise be available for.
It is useful to place Section 321 beside its neighbours. Section 320 deals with property that is removed, concealed, delivered or transferred without adequate consideration, with a stated intention or knowledge about distribution among creditors; Section 321 deals with a debt or demand and uses the single verb “prevents”. Section 323, in its last limb, punishes a person who dishonestly releases a demand or claim to which he is entitled; Section 321 does not use the word “release”, and its wording is about preventing a debt or demand from being made available. Section 322 concerns deeds of transfer containing false statements. Where a debt is redirected so that money ends up with someone else, the facts may also be looked at under Section 320; the wording of the two sections does not itself say how they are to be reconciled where facts touch both, and a reader with an actual matter should take advice.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple, as listed in Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both, with no minimum term; that is the same as IPC Section 422. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is 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) it 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 may extend to two years, or fine, or both. The section sets 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.
No. The section covers a debt or demand due “to himself or to any other person”; where it is due to another person, the words “such other person” point to the debts of that other person.
Section 320 concerns property that is removed, concealed, delivered or transferred without adequate consideration, with an intention or knowledge about distribution among creditors. Section 321 concerns a debt or demand due to someone and punishes dishonestly or fraudulently preventing it from being made available for payment of debts.
No. A word-by-word comparison shows the wording and the punishment are identical.