Section 345 does three jobs. It defines a “property mark” as a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person, it defines what it means to use a “false property mark”, and it punishes anyone who uses a false property mark, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, with imprisonment of up to one year, or fine, or both. Its three sub-sections repeat IPC Sections 479, 481 and 482 word for word.
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 345 is not marked “Change” in the concordance, but the section as a whole consolidates three separate provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 479, 481 and 482), which now appear as its three sub-sections. Each sub-section maps one-to-one to a single IPC section and repeats its wording, so each is classed Exact:
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 345(1) | S.479 “Property mark” | Exact |
| 345(2) | S.481 “Using a false property mark” | Exact |
| 345(3) | S.482 “Punishment for using a false property mark” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison of each BNS sub-section with its IPC counterpart shows no difference in wording: 345(1) with IPC Section 479 (the definition of a property mark), 345(2) with IPC Section 481 (what it means to use a false property mark), and 345(3) with IPC Section 482 (imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both, unless the person proves that he acted without intent to defraud). The comparison is made with the IPC provisions as amended: the IPC text shows that its provisions on trade marks (Sections 478 and 480) were repealed in 1959 by the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and those two sections have no counterpart in this section, which deals only with property marks. The IPC text also shows that the words “any false trade mark or” were omitted from Section 482 by the same 1958 Act with effect from 1959, and the comparison of 345(3) is made with Section 482 in that amended form. The concordance pairs the section heading with IPC Section 479 and places sub-sections (2) and (3) against IPC Sections 481 and 482.
(1) A mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person is called a property mark.
(2) Whoever marks any movable property or goods or any case, package or other receptacle containing movable property or goods, or uses any case, package or other receptacle having any mark thereon, in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the property or goods so marked, or any property or goods contained in any such receptacle so marked, belong to a person to whom they do not belong, is said to use a false property mark.
(3) Whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, 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 purely a definition: “a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person is called a property mark.” Two features of the wording matter. First, what makes something a property mark, on the wording of the sub-section, is the purpose for which it is used, namely denoting that the property belongs to a particular person; the sub-section does not describe a mark by its shape or form. Second, it applies to movable property, which Section 2(21) of the Sanhita defines as including property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. The person to whom the property belongs may be any “person”, and Section 2(26) provides that this includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
Sub-section (1) creates no offence and no punishment of its own. It supplies a term that the rest of the property-mark provisions use: the same words appear in Sections 346, 347, 348 and 349, and in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section. A reader who wants to know whether a particular mark falls within those sections starts here, by asking whether it is a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person.
Sub-section (2) explains when a person “is said to use a false property mark”. It has two alternative limbs. In the first, the person marks any movable property or goods, or any case, package or other receptacle containing movable property or goods. In the second, he uses any case, package or other receptacle having any mark on it. In either limb the conduct must be in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the property or goods so marked, or any property or goods contained in the receptacle so marked, belong to a person to whom they do not belong. Either limb is enough; the person does not have to do both.
The test is worded around the manner of the marking or use and the belief it is reasonably calculated to produce; the sub-section does not itself mention any intention to cheat. In the words of the sub-section, the mark is a false property mark where the marking or use is reasonably calculated to make the goods appear to belong to a person to whom they do not belong. Like sub-section (1), this sub-section only defines a term. The punishment for using a false property mark is in sub-section (3), and counterfeiting a property mark used by another person is dealt with separately in Section 347.
Sub-section (3) is the punishing provision: whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. “False property mark” carries the meaning given in sub-section (2), so a person uses a false property mark when he marks goods or receptacles, or uses a marked receptacle, in the manner sub-section (2) describes. The words “unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud” are written into the sub-section as something the person who used the mark must prove. The section does not say more about how that is to be shown.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for up to one year, or fine, or both; the section does not fix an amount of fine. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is non-cognizable and bailable and is triable by any Magistrate. BNSS Section 359(1) lists it among the offences that may be compounded without the Court's permission; the person who may compound it is the person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use. Counterfeiting a property mark used by another is punished separately by Section 347, and selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark by Section 349.
Under sub-section (3), imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both, for a person who uses a false property mark and does not prove that he acted without intent to defraud. The section does not fix the amount of the fine.
No. Sub-section (1) defines a property mark and sub-section (2) explains when a person is said to use a false property mark. The punishment is in sub-section (3).
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS the offence at sub-section (3) is non-cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate. It can be compounded, without the permission of the Court, by the person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use (BNSS Section 359(1)).
The sub-section says the person is punished “unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud”. So the sub-section is worded to make absence of intent to defraud something the person who used the mark must prove.
The section speaks only of property marks, defined as marks used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person. It does not mention trade marks. The IPC's separate trade-mark provisions (Sections 478 and 480) appear in the IPC text as repealed in 1959 and have no counterpart in this section. (The compounding table in BNSS Section 359 lists the offence at 345(3) as “Using a false trade or property mark”; the BNS text of Section 345 itself refers only to a false property mark.)
No. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) are word-for-word the same as IPC Sections 479, 481 and 482 respectively, comparing with those sections as amended.