Section 334 punishes anyone who, dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens a closed receptacle that contains, or that he believes to contain, property. Sub-section (1) applies to anyone and carries up to two years; sub-section (2) applies to a person who was entrusted with the receptacle but had no authority to open it, and carries up to three years. It gathers two provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 461 and 462) into one section.
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 334 is set against two provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, so it consolidates two old sections, IPC Sections 461 and 462, into one: sub-section (1) carries IPC Section 461 and sub-section (2) carries IPC Section 462, under one marginal heading. Each sub-section maps one-to-one to a single IPC section, so no row is itself a merger, and each is classed Exact on the word-by-word comparison below (the only difference is one comma in (2)):
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 334(1) | S.461 “Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property” | Exact |
| 334(2) | S.462 “Punishment for same offence when committed by person entrusted with custody” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison of the two Acts shows that sub-section (1) is identical to IPC Section 461, and that sub-section (2) is identical to IPC Section 462 except for one punctuation mark: the BNS prints a comma after the word “property” (“…contain property, without having authority to open the same…”), whereas the IPC prints no comma there (“…contain property without having authority to open the same…”). No word differs. This page treats the comma as a punctuation-only difference. The concordance carries no Change marker against Section 334; the “Exact” label on each row is Lexovia’s own, from the comparison of the two texts. The punishments are the same in both Acts: imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both, for sub-section (1); and up to three years, or fine, or both, for sub-section (2). What has changed is the layout: the IPC gave the two offences separate section numbers, each with its own marginal heading (the second one reading “Punishment for same offence when committed by person entrusted with custody”), while the BNS places both under the single heading “Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property” as sub-sections (1) and (2).
(1) Whoever dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three 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.
Sub-section (1) is the basic offence, and it can be committed by anyone. It has four ingredients, all of which must be present. First, the conduct: the accused must break open or unfasten something. The two verbs are alternatives, so forcing or smashing a receptacle open is covered, and so is undoing whatever holds it shut, such as a lock, latch or catch. Section 2 of the Sanhita does not define either verb; this page uses them in their everyday sense. Second, the thing opened must be a “closed receptacle”. Section 2 does not define “receptacle”; this page uses the word in its everyday sense, as a container, and the sub-section requires that it be closed, so the act is one of opening something that was shut. Third, the receptacle must either contain property or be one which the accused believes to contain property. The sub-section says “believes”, not the defined expression “reason to believe” (Section 2(29), which requires sufficient cause to believe), so the enquiry is into what the accused himself believed. Because a belief is enough, the fact that the receptacle turns out to be empty does not take the act outside the sub-section if the accused opened it believing that it held property. Section 2(21) defines “movable property”, but the sub-section speaks simply of “property”, and Section 2 contains no separate definition of that word.
Fourth, the mental element, which is stated as two alternatives: the accused must act either “dishonestly” or “with intent to commit mischief”. “Dishonestly” is defined in Section 2(7) as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person; “wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” are defined in Section 2(36) and 2(37) by reference to gain or loss, by unlawful means, of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled, or the person losing it is legally entitled. “Mischief” is defined in Section 324(1): with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causing the destruction of any property, or any change in property or in its situation that destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously. The first route is therefore about wrongful gain or loss of property, and the second is tied to that definition of mischief. Either is enough.
The sub-section does not require that anything be taken. The offence is the opening of the receptacle with the required state of mind; if property is also removed, other provisions such as theft under Section 303 may separately come into view, but they are not needed for sub-section (1). It should also be kept apart from house-breaking under Section 330(2), which concerns entering a house in particular ways rather than opening a receptacle. The punishment is imprisonment of either description (which Section 4(c) divides into rigorous and simple) for up to two years, or fine, or both. Under the First Schedule to the BNSS the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and it is not compoundable.
Sub-section (2) deals with the same physical act in a different position. The accused is a person who has been “entrusted” with the closed receptacle but does not have authority to open it. Its ingredients are: (a) the accused is entrusted with a closed receptacle which contains, or which he believes to contain, property; (b) he has no authority to open it; (c) he breaks open or unfastens it; and (d) he does so dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, with the same two meanings of those expressions explained under sub-section (1). Section 2 does not define “entrusted”; this page uses the word in its everyday sense, of having a thing placed in one’s charge.
The sub-section is written for the person who holds the receptacle but goes beyond that role by opening it: the custody has been given, the authority to open has not. Sub-section (1) opens with the word “Whoever”, so on its wording it is not confined to persons with no connection to the receptacle; sub-section (2) separately names the entrusted person and carries the higher maximum. If the accused did have authority to open the receptacle, ingredient (b) would not be met. The BNS prints a comma after the word “property” in this sub-section (“…contain property, without having authority to open the same…”); the corresponding text of the old Code has no such comma, and the difference is one of punctuation only.
The punishment is higher than in sub-section (1): imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both, against two years in sub-section (1). The First Schedule to the BNSS classifies sub-section (2) as cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate; sub-section (1), by contrast, is listed there as non-bailable. The Schedule’s short description of the sub-section (2) row speaks of “fraudulently” opening the receptacle; the word “fraudulently” does not appear in the sub-section itself, whose mental element is stated as “dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief”. Sub-section (2) should also be kept distinct from criminal breach of trust under Section 316, which concerns dishonest misappropriation or use of entrusted property; sub-section (2) concerns breaking open the entrusted receptacle itself. The offence is not compoundable.
Sub-section (1): imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous, per Section 4(c)) for up to two years, or fine, or both. Sub-section (2), for a person who was entrusted with the receptacle and had no authority to open it: imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both. The section does not fix the amount of the fine.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS, both sub-sections are cognizable and triable by any Magistrate. Sub-section (1) is listed as non-bailable and sub-section (2) as bailable. Neither appears in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so the offence is not compoundable.
No. The offence is breaking open or unfastening a closed receptacle that contains, or that the accused believes to contain, property, dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief. The section does not mention taking anything. If property is also taken, other sections such as Section 303 (theft) may separately be relevant.
The section covers a receptacle “which contains or which he believes to contain property”. If the accused opened it believing that it held property, the fact that it was empty does not by itself take the act outside the section.
Sub-section (1) applies to anyone who does the act. Sub-section (2) is written for a person who was entrusted with the closed receptacle and had no authority to open it, and it carries a higher maximum punishment (three years instead of two).
The two old sections have been brought together in one section, as sub-sections (1) and (2). The wording of sub-section (1) is identical to IPC Section 461, and sub-section (2) differs from IPC Section 462 only by one comma. The punishments are the same.