Section 98 punishes selling, letting to hire, or otherwise disposing of any child with intent, or knowledge of likelihood, that the child will at any age be employed or used for prostitution, illicit intercourse, or any unlawful and immoral purpose. Punishment is imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and fine. Two Explanations set a rebuttable presumption for females sold to a prostitute or brothel-keeper, and define "illicit intercourse" for the section.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 98 to old IPC Section 372, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 98 | 372 | Substantively changed |
Comparing the two texts word for word: old IPC Section 372's operative text applied to selling, letting to hire, or disposing of "any person under the age of eighteen years." BNS Section 98 replaces this with "any child" in the main operative text. Explanation 1's presumption clause, which applies specifically to a "female under the age of eighteen years" sold to a prostitute or brothel-keeper, and Explanation 2's definition of "illicit intercourse," are otherwise carried forward without change.
Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any child with intent that such child shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such child will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—When a female under the age of eighteen years is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section “illicit intercourse” means sexual intercourse between persons not united by marriage or by any union or tie which, though not amounting to a marriage, is recognised by the personal law or custom of the community to which they belong or, where they belong to different communities, of both such communities, as constituting between them a quasi-marital relation.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 98 punishes selling, letting to hire, or otherwise disposing of any child, where the accused acts with intent, or knowledge of likelihood, that the child will at any age be employed or used for prostitution, illicit intercourse, or any other unlawful and immoral purpose. Explanation 1 creates a rebuttable presumption: where a female under eighteen is sold, let for hire, or disposed of to a prostitute or a brothel-keeper, the person disposing of her is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have intended her use for prostitution. Explanation 2 defines "illicit intercourse" for the section as sexual intercourse between persons not united by marriage, or by a relationship recognised by their personal law or custom as a quasi-marital relation.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 98 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A minor girl, who had left home in poverty looking for respectable work, ended up in a rented house in Bangalore occupied by the appellant and his wife; her account was that four strangers had forcibly taken her from a bus stand and handed her over to them. She said she was confined in the house and made to have sex with paying men. On a tip-off from NGO workers, the police sent in a decoy, who handed the appellant money for sex with the girl; she was then rescued and the marked notes were recovered. The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant and his wife under Sections 366A and 373 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that her account was embellished and inconsistent.
Section 98 punishes selling, letting to hire or otherwise disposing of a child intending or knowing it likely that the child will be used for prostitution or any unlawful and immoral purpose. Its predecessor, Section 372 of the IPC, was among the sections under which the appellant was charged, but the convictions the Court records were under Sections 366A and 373 and the 1956 Act, so this case is not a conviction under Section 372 itself. It is placed here for its guidance on weighing the evidence of a minor trafficked for prostitution, the setting in which prosecutions for selling a child arise.
The Court held that contradictions of this kind were minor and her account was substantially corroborated by other evidence. It laid down that a court assessing a minor trafficking victim's evidence should keep in mind her socio-economic vulnerability; the layered way trafficking networks operate, which makes it hard for a victim to describe them precisely, so that failure to protest promptly is not a ground to discard her version; the further trauma of retelling the experience, so that her evidence must be assessed with sensitivity and realism; and that if her version is credible and convincing, a conviction can rest on her sole testimony, because a trafficked minor is not an accomplice and her evidence deserves the credence given to an injured witness. The appeal was dismissed.
Currency check: decided December 2025, very recent. The offences occurred in 2010 and were tried under the IPC and the 1956 Act; the Sanhita provisions (Section 98 corresponds to Section 372) descend from them. Nothing in the materials reviewed indicates it has been overruled.
Explanation 1's presumption applies specifically to a female under the age of eighteen years sold, let for hire, or disposed of to a prostitute or brothel-keeper. It is a rebuttable presumption — the person disposing of her may prove the contrary.
No. The offence is complete on the sale, hiring out, or disposal done with the requisite intent or knowledge — the section does not require that the child was in fact used for prostitution or illicit intercourse.
No. Per the BNSS First Schedule, it is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Session.