Section 99 punishes buying, hiring, or otherwise obtaining possession 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 of not less than seven years, extending to fourteen years, and fine. This is the final section of Chapter V; Chapter VI, "Of Offences Affecting the Human Body," begins immediately after.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 99 to old IPC Section 373 and itself flags the mapping as "(Change)," and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 99 | 373 | Substantively changed |
Comparing the two texts word for word: old IPC Section 373's operative text applied to buying, hiring, or obtaining possession of "any person under the age of eighteen years," punishable with imprisonment extending to ten years. BNS Section 99 replaces "any person under the age of eighteen years" with "any child" in the main operative text, and raises the punishment to imprisonment of not less than seven years, extending to fourteen years — introducing a mandatory minimum and raising the maximum from ten to fourteen years. Explanation 1's presumption clause and Explanation 2's cross-reference to the "illicit intercourse" definition are otherwise carried forward.
Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession 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 shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—Any prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of a female under the age of eighteen years shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Explanation 2.—“Illicit intercourse” has the same meaning as in section 98.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 99 is the buyer's-side counterpart to Section 98's seller's-side offence. It punishes buying, hiring, or otherwise obtaining possession 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 specific to prostitutes and brothel-keepers who buy, hire, or obtain possession of a female under eighteen: they are presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have done so with intent that she be used for prostitution. Explanation 2 simply cross-references Section 98's definition of "illicit intercourse" rather than repeating it.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 99 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 99 punishes buying, hiring or otherwise obtaining possession 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 373 of the IPC, was one of the provisions under which the appellant and his wife were convicted, so the Court's guidance on how to weigh the victim's evidence was given in a prosecution of exactly this kind.
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 99 corresponds to Section 373) descend from them. Nothing in the materials reviewed indicates it has been overruled.
Section 98 punishes the person who sells, lets to hire, or disposes of a child. Section 99 punishes the person on the other side of that transaction — the one who buys, hires, or obtains possession of the child — and carries a higher punishment, with a mandatory minimum of seven years.
No. It applies specifically to a prostitute or a person keeping or managing a brothel who buys, hires, or obtains possession of a female under eighteen. It is a rebuttable presumption.
No. Per the BNSS First Schedule, it is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Session.