Section 316 BNS: Criminal breach of trust

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 316 BNS at a Glance

Section 316 BNS deals with criminal breach of trust. It replaced Sections 405, 406, 407, 408 and 409 IPC on 1 July 2024.

Punishment

None. Section 316(1) BNS is a definition sub-section and prescribes no punishment of its own; criminal breach of trust is punished under Section 316(2) BNS through Section 316(5) BNS according to the capacity of the offender and the nature of the entrustment.

IPC Equivalent

Section 405 →

Section 316 BNS Bare Act Text

(1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

Explanation 1.

A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Explanation 2.

A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Illustrations.

(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(b) A is a warehouse-keeper Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(c) A, residing in Kolkata, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits one lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(d) But if A, in illustration (c), not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company’s paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

(e) A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(4) Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Section 316, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 316 BNS in the IPC (Previous Law)

Section 316 BNS replaced Sections 405, 406, 407, 408 and 409 IPC from 1 July 2024.

Each sub-section below names its own source.

FAQs on Section 316 BNS

Under Section 316(1) BNS, what is the difference between criminal breach of trust and theft?▼

The main difference is entrustment. In theft, the property is taken without consent. Under this section, the property is first lawfully given to the accused, and then dishonestly misused or retained.

Can a simple failure to repay money become an offence under Section 316(1) BNS?▼

Not always. A mere debt dispute or delay in repayment is usually a civil matter. There must be proof that the money or property was entrusted and then dishonestly misappropriated.

Is Section 316(1) BNS commonly used in employer-employee disputes?▼

Yes, often. It may apply where an employee collects money, handles stock, or manages company property and then diverts it for personal use. The facts must show dishonest conduct, not just poor accounting or negligence.

What should a person do if falsely accused under Section 316(1) BNS?▼

Collect documents that show the purpose of entrustment, payments made, and any instructions followed. Early legal advice is useful because bail, anticipatory bail, and a proper defence strategy depend heavily on the facts.

Is every failure to return money covered under Section 316(2) BNS?▼

No. There must be entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion. A simple payment dispute or breach of contract usually remains a civil matter unless dishonest intent can be shown.

Can an employee be booked under Section 316(2) BNS?▼

Yes, if the employee was entrusted with property, cash, or records and dishonestly misused them. But the employer must show more than mere negligence or accounting error.

Is the offence under Section 316(2) BNS bailable?▼

No. Criminal breach of trust under this section is a non-bailable offence, so bail is not a matter of right. The accused must apply to the court, which decides based on the facts, the amount involved, and other circumstances.

What is the difference between Section 316(2) BNS and cheating?▼

Cheating involves deception at the beginning, when the property is induced to be delivered. Here, the property is given lawfully first, and the dishonest act happens later.

What is the difference between Section 316(3) BNS and ordinary breach of trust?▼

Section 316(3) BNS applies specifically to a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper entrusted with property in that capacity. The punishment is harsher because the accused holds a position of commercial trust. Ordinary breach of trust is covered under Section 316(2) BNS and carries a lower maximum punishment.

Can a transport company be booked under Section 316(3) BNS?▼

Yes, if goods were handed over for transport and the carrier dishonestly misused, sold, or diverted them, this section can apply. The key issue is proof of entrustment and dishonest conduct. A simple delay or loss without dishonest intention may not be enough by itself.

Is the offence under Section 316(3) BNS bailable?▼

No, it is generally a non-bailable offence. That means bail is not a matter of right and depends on the court's discretion. The facts of the case, value of goods, and conduct of the accused matter a lot.

Under Section 316(3) BNS, what should a victim do if goods are missing from a warehouse or truck?▼

The victim should collect documents first, such as delivery notes, receipts, invoices, and correspondence. Then a police complaint can be filed with details of entrustment, value of goods, and how the breach happened. Civil remedies may also be available alongside criminal action.

What is the difference between Section 316(4) BNS and ordinary breach of trust?▼

Section 316(4) BNS applies when the accused is a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant and is entrusted with property in that capacity. The law treats misuse of entrusted property by such a person more seriously because of the position of trust. Ordinary breach of trust is covered under Section 316(2) BNS and carries a lesser punishment.

Can an employee be booked under Section 316(4) BNS for missing cash or stock?▼

Yes, if the employer can show entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. A simple shortage is not enough by itself. The prosecution must connect the accused to the property and show a dishonest act, not just poor accounting or negligence.

Is the offence under Section 316(4) BNS bailable?▼

No. It is generally treated as a non-bailable offence. That means bail is not a matter of right and depends on the court's discretion.

Does every workplace dispute become a criminal case under Section 316(4) BNS?▼

No. Many disputes are civil or contractual in nature. This section is attracted only when there is entrustment and dishonest misuse of property. If those elements are missing, the case may not stand as a criminal offence.

Who can be charged under Section 316(5) BNS?▼

This section mainly applies to public servants, bankers, merchants, agents, and others who are entrusted with property because of their position. The key point is that the person must have been given property or control over it in a relationship of trust. If that trust is dishonestly broken, this section may apply.

Is mere delay in returning money enough for Section 316(5) BNS?▼

No, delay by itself is not enough. The prosecution must show dishonest misappropriation or conversion, not just a payment dispute or administrative delay. Courts usually look for clear proof that the property was used wrongfully or diverted.

What is the punishment under Section 316(5) BNS?▼

The punishment is very severe. It can extend to imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to 10 years, and the accused is also liable to fine. This reflects the seriousness of misuse of trust by persons in responsible positions.

Can a bank employee or government officer be booked under Section 316(5) BNS?▼

Yes, if the facts show entrustment and dishonest misuse of property. A bank employee handling customer funds or a government officer handling public money may fall within this provision if they misappropriate it. Each case depends on the exact role, documents, and conduct involved.

Section 316 BNS: Sub-sections Explained

Section 316(1) BNS: Criminal breach of trust

▶

Bare Act Text

(1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

Explanation 1.

A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Explanation 2.

A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Illustrations.

(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(b) A is a warehouse-keeper Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(c) A, residing in Kolkata, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits one lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(d) But if A, in illustration (c), not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company’s paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

(e) A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

Explanation

1.—A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with criminal breach of trust. It applies when a person is given property, or control over property, for a specific purpose, and then dishonestly misuses it, converts it to their own use, or deals with it against the legal direction or agreement. The key point is that the property was lawfully entrusted in the first place. This section is often used in cases involving employees, partners, agents, trustees, bankers, or anyone who holds property on another person's behalf.

It matters because not every failure to return property is a crime. The prosecution must show dishonest intention and misuse of the entrusted property. In practical terms, this section is used where there is a breach of trust, not just a civil dispute over money or goods.

Key Ingredients

  • Entrustment with property or dominion over property in any manner
  • Dishonest misappropriation, conversion to own use, or use or disposal in violation of legal direction or contract

Punishment

🔒 None. Section 316(1) BNS is a definition sub-section and prescribes no punishment of its own; criminal breach of trust is punished under Section 316(2) BNS through Section 316(5) BNS according to the capacity of the offender and the nature of the entrustment.

💰 None under Section 316(1) BNS; fine liability is governed by the punishing provisions in Section 316(2) BNS through Section 316(5) BNS.

Section 316(1) BNS defines criminal breach of trust and prescribes no penalty of its own. Punishment is supplied by Section 316(2) BNS through Section 316(5) BNS.

Real-World Example

Sunil, an advocate practicing in Lucknow, was entrusted by his client Rajesh with two lakh rupees under an express written agreement to deposit the entire sum into court toward a land acquisition proceeding. Instead of depositing the money into court as directed, Sunil dishonestly used the money to pay his own personal debts and purchase office equipment. Sunil was entrusted with property and with dominion over that money, and he dishonestly used it in violation of the contract under which the trust was to be discharged. Sunil has committed criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 316(1) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • There was no entrustment of property or dominion over property to the person
  • The property was used or disposed of in accordance with the direction of law and the legal contract touching the discharge of the trust
  • The dealing with the property was done in good faith without any dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss
  • A failure to return or account for property arising purely from a commercial disagreement without dishonest conversion or misappropriation

Previous Law

IPC 405 → Section 316(1) BNS

Section 405 IPC was a definition section. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 316(1) BNS re-enacts this definition. The definition of criminal breach of trust, Explanation 1 relating to employers deducting employees' provident fund or family pension contributions, Explanation 2 relating to employees' state insurance contributions, and illustrations a through f are carried over. In illustration c, Calcutta is modernised to Kolkata and a lakh of rupees is worded as one lakh of rupees, and in illustration d, the words in the last illustration are updated to in illustration c. The legal definition itself is substantively unchanged.

Section 316(2) BNS: Punishment for criminal breach of trust

▶

Bare Act Text

(2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust. In simple terms, it applies when a person is given property, money, or control over assets for a specific purpose and then dishonestly uses it, keeps it, or deals with it against that trust. The key idea is that the property was lawfully entrusted at the start, but later misused with dishonest intent. This section commonly comes up in cases involving employees, partners, agents, trustees, tenants, or anyone handling another person’s property or funds.

To succeed under this section, the prosecution must show entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or violation of a legal direction or contract. It matters in day-to-day disputes because not every failure to return money or property is a criminal case. The court looks for clear dishonest conduct, not just a civil breach or business dispute.

Key Ingredients

  • Committing criminal breach of trust in respect of entrusted property
  • Punishment of imprisonment of either description extending up to five years, or fine, or both under Section 316(2) BNS

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable (with court permission) ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years.

💰 Fine, or imprisonment, or both.

Criminal breach of trust carries imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to five years, or fine, or both.

Real-World Example

Kiran entrusted ten sovereign gold bangles to her neighbour Sunita for safekeeping while Kiran travelled out of town for medical treatment. Under their mutual understanding, Sunita was to keep the jewellery securely in her locker and return it immediately upon Kiran's return. Instead of keeping the jewellery safely, Sunita dishonestly sold the bangles at a local jewellery market to pay off personal liabilities and kept the sale proceeds. Sunita was entrusted with the property and dishonestly converted it to her own use in violation of the entrustment. Sunita has committed criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 316(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • No property or dominion over property was ever entrusted to the accused
  • The property was used or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the entrustment or legal contract
  • The dealing with the property occurred in good faith under a bona fide claim of right without dishonest intention
  • The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature regarding unsettled accounts without dishonest misappropriation

Previous Law

IPC 406 → Section 316(2) BNS

Section 406 IPC corresponds to Section 316(2) BNS. Section 316(2) BNS raises the maximum term of imprisonment of either description from three years under Section 406 IPC to five years, while retaining fine as an alternative or additional punishment. In addition, Section 316(2) BNS consolidates the definition of criminal breach of trust and its four distinct punishing provisions into a single section with five sub-sections.

Section 316(3) BNS: Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc

▶

Bare Act Text

(3) Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 316(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with criminal breach of trust by a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper entrusted with property in that capacity. In simple terms, if such a person is given goods to transport or store and then dishonestly misappropriates them, uses them for an unauthorised purpose, or allows someone else to do so, this section may apply. This provision is meant to protect people and businesses that hand over goods in the ordinary course of trade, transport, or warehousing.

It applies where there is a clear entrustment of property to a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper and a dishonest breach of that trust. The law treats such conduct seriously because the victim has already parted with control over the goods. In practice, this section is often used in disputes involving transport companies, warehouses, logistics operators, and storage arrangements where goods go missing, are sold, or are diverted without permission.

Key Ingredients

  • Entrustment of property to a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper in that capacity
  • Dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or disposal of the property
  • Punishment of imprisonment of either description up to seven years and liability to fine under Section 316(3) BNS

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

💰 Liable to fine; the section does not prescribe a mandatory fine or fix a maximum amount.

Criminal breach of trust by a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper carries imprisonment of either description up to seven years and liability to fine.

Real-World Example

Harish ran a commercial warehouse in Surat where Amit stored fifty cartons of silk sarees awaiting transit to Mumbai. Amit entrusted the sarees to Harish specifically in his capacity as a warehouse-keeper under an agreement requiring safe storage and release only upon production of the delivery receipt. Instead of preserving the consignment, Harish dishonestly sold twenty cartons to an unauthorized trader for cash and appropriated the proceeds. Harish was entrusted with the goods as a warehouse-keeper and dishonestly converted them to his own use in violation of his trust. Harish is punishable under Section 316(3) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused was not entrusted with property in the capacity of a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper
  • The property was carried, stored, or delivered strictly in accordance with the terms of the entrustment or contract
  • The goods were damaged, lost, or delayed through accident or negligence without any dishonest conversion or misappropriation
  • The dealing with the goods was done under a bona fide belief of entitlement without dishonest intention

Previous Law

IPC 407 → Section 316(3) BNS

Section 407 IPC corresponds to Section 316(3) BNS. Section 316(3) BNS reproduces the offence and its punishment without substantive change, providing imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and liability to fine. The provision is consolidated into Section 316(3) BNS as the third sub-section, sitting beneath the general definition in Section 316(1) BNS and the general punishment in Section 316(2) BNS.

Section 316(4) BNS: Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant

▶

Bare Act Text

(4) Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. It applies when a person employed as a clerk, servant, or in a similar position is entrusted with property, money, or control over it, and then dishonestly misuses that trust for personal gain or to cause loss to the employer or owner. This section matters because the law treats such conduct more seriously than an ordinary breach of trust.

A clerk or servant is expected to handle property in a position of confidence. If that confidence is abused, the offence is made out only when dishonest intention and entrustment are proved. In practice, this section is often used in workplace disputes involving cash, stock, accounts, documents, or company property.

For employers, this provision gives a legal remedy where an employee has diverted funds or misappropriated goods. For accused persons, the key defence often lies in showing absence of entrustment, lack of dishonest intention, or that the matter is only a civil or accounting dispute and not a criminal breach of trust.

Key Ingredients

  • Entrustment of property or dominion over property to a clerk or servant in that capacity
  • Commission of criminal breach of trust in respect of the entrusted property
  • Punishment under Section 316(4) BNS of imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and liability to fine

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable (with court permission) ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine. The statute does not make fine mandatory and prescribes no fixed limit.

Criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant is punished with imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and liability to fine.

Real-World Example

Ramesh was employed as a billing clerk at a textile store in Surat and was entrusted in that capacity with collecting cash payments from retail buyers. After receiving twenty thousand rupees from a customer, Ramesh dishonestly appropriated the sum for his personal expenses instead of depositing it into the shop account. Ramesh was employed as a clerk, received the funds in that capacity, and dishonestly converted the property to his own use. Ramesh is punishable under Section 316(4) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused was neither a clerk nor a servant, nor employed as a clerk or servant
  • The accused was not entrusted in such capacity with the property or with dominion over it
  • There was no criminal breach of trust committed in respect of the entrusted property

Previous Law

IPC 408 → Section 316(4) BNS

Section 408 IPC corresponds to Section 316(4) BNS. Section 316(4) BNS reproduces the text and punishment of the IPC provision without substantive change, retaining imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and liability to fine. The offence is now placed as the fourth sub-section of Section 316(4) BNS, which consolidates the general definition and the aggravated forms of criminal breach of trust.

Section 316(5) BNS: Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent

▶

Bare Act Text

(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with a serious form of criminal breach of trust when the person accused holds a position of public or commercial trust. It applies to public servants, bankers, merchants, factors, brokers, attorneys, or agents who are entrusted with property or have dominion over it in that capacity or in the way of their business. If such a person dishonestly misappropriates the property, uses it for an unauthorised purpose, or acts against the terms of trust, this section can be invoked.

The law treats this offence more seriously than ordinary breach of trust because the accused is expected to act with greater honesty and responsibility. In practice, this section is often used where government money, public funds, bank deposits, or property handled in an official or professional capacity is diverted or misused. For a prosecution to succeed, it is not enough to show loss.

The prosecution must prove entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, and a clear breach of trust. For an accused, the main defence is often that there was no dishonest intention, or that the property was not entrusted in the legal sense.

Key Ingredients

  • Entrustment of property or dominion over property to a public servant or commercial agent in that capacity
  • Commission of criminal breach of trust in respect of the entrusted property
  • Punishment under Section 316(5) BNS of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and liability to fine

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine. The statute does not prescribe a mandatory fine or fix a maximum amount.

Criminal breach of trust by a public servant or commercial agent carries imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and liability to fine.

Real-World Example

Anand served as a revenue collection officer in a municipal corporation and was entrusted in his official capacity with collecting municipal property taxes. After collecting two lakh rupees from various property owners, Anand dishonestly converted the sum to his personal use instead of depositing it into the government treasury. Anand was entrusted with public funds in his capacity as a public servant and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of those funds. Anand is punishable under Section 316(5) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused was not entrusted with property or dominion over property in the capacity of a public servant, nor in the way of business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney, or agent
  • There was no criminal breach of trust committed in respect of the property

Previous Law

IPC 409 → Section 316(5) BNS

Section 409 IPC corresponds to Section 316(5) BNS. Section 316(5) BNS reproduces the text and penalties of Section 409 IPC without substantive change, providing imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and liability to fine. The provision is consolidated into Section 316(5) BNS as its fifth sub-section, retaining all the specified professional and public capacities.

Have questions about Section 316 BNS?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, punishment details, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·