Section 356 BNS: Defamation
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 356 BNS at a Glance
Section 356 BNS deals with defamation. It replaced Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 IPC on 1 July 2024.
None. Section 356(1) BNS prescribes no punishment: it defines defamation. The punishment is provided by Section 356(2) BNS, which punishes defamation with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
Section 356 BNS Bare Act Text
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.Illustrations.No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
(a) A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
Exception 1.It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Exception 2.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Exception 3.Illustration.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.
Exception 4.It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Exception 5.Illustrations.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
(a) A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.
Exception 6.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.Illustrations.A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.
(e) But if A says “I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.
Exception 7.Illustration.It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders, a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier are within this exception.
Exception 8.Illustration.It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father, A is within this exception.
Exception 9.Illustrations.It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
Exception 10.It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Source: Section 356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 356 BNS in the IPC (Previous Law)
FAQs on Section 356 BNS
Under Section 356(1) BNS, is every negative statement about someone defamation?▼
No. A statement becomes legally risky only when it is an imputation that harms reputation and is published to others. Honest criticism, fair comment, and statements covered by legal exceptions may not amount to defamation.
Under Section 356(1) BNS, can a WhatsApp message or social media post amount to defamation?▼
Yes, it can. If the message or post contains a false or harmful imputation and is shared with others, it may satisfy the publication requirement. The platform does not matter as much as the content and the intention behind it.
Under Section 356(1) BNS, can I file a criminal case for defamation directly?▼
Usually, defamation is taken up through a complaint before the Magistrate, not by a police FIR in the ordinary course. Since it is non-cognizable, police cannot normally investigate it without court direction.
Under Section 356(1) BNS, what if the statement is true?▼
Truth is not an automatic defence in every case. The statement must also be shown to be made for the public good, depending on the facts and the relevant exception.
Is defamation under Section 356(2) BNS a criminal offence?▼
Yes. This provision makes defamation a criminal offence when the ingredients of Section 356(1) BNS are satisfied. The case may lead to punishment by simple imprisonment, fine, or both, or community service.
Can a person be arrested immediately for the offence under Section 356(2) BNS?▼
No, it is generally a non-cognizable offence. That means police cannot ordinarily arrest or investigate without following the legal process and getting proper authority where required.
Under Section 356(2) BNS, can defamation cases be settled?▼
Yes, this offence is compoundable, so the complainant and accused may settle it with the court’s permission, as permitted by law. In practice, many such matters end through compromise, especially in personal disputes.
Does Section 356(2) BNS apply to online posts and social media comments?▼
Yes, if an online post, message, or comment satisfies the legal test of defamation, this section can apply. The medium does not matter as long as the statement is published and reputation is harmed.
Does Section 356(3) BNS apply if I only printed the material and did not write it?▼
Yes, it can still apply if you printed or engraved the matter and knew or had good reason to believe it was defamatory. The law is concerned with your knowledge and role in producing the material, not only with authorship. If you had no such knowledge or reason to believe, that may be a strong defence depending on the evidence.
Under Section 356(3) BNS, is simple printing enough to make me guilty?▼
No. The prosecution must show that you knew or had good reason to believe the matter was defamatory when you printed or engraved it. Mere mechanical printing without such knowledge is not enough by itself.
What kind of material is covered under Section 356(3) BNS?▼
The section can cover printed matter, engraved matter, and similar published material such as pamphlets, posters, notices, or books. The exact form is less important than whether the material was printed or engraved and was defamatory.
Has Section 356(3) BNS changed under the new criminal law?▼
No substantive change has been made. The earlier provision has been carried into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as Section 356(3) BNS with the same ingredients and punishment, though the section numbering has changed.
Does Section 356(4) BNS apply only to the person who wrote the defamatory matter?▼
No. It applies to the person who sells or offers for sale the printed or engraved substance. The key point is knowledge that the material contains defamatory content.
Can a bookseller be punished under Section 356(4) BNS?▼
Yes, if the bookseller knowingly sells or offers for sale defamatory material. If the sale was truly innocent and the seller did not know the contents were defamatory, liability is not made out under this sub-section.
What has to be proved in court under Section 356(4) BNS?▼
The prosecution must prove the sale or offering for sale of the printed or engraved substance, the defamatory nature of the content, and the accused’s knowledge that it contained defamatory matter. Without proof of knowledge, the case usually weakens significantly.
Is Section 356(4) BNS still in force today?▼
Yes. Section 356(4) BNS is in force under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, continuing the earlier offence and punishment for selling or offering for sale printed or engraved defamatory matter.
Section 356 BNS: Sub-sections Explained
Section 356(1) BNS: Defamation
▶
Bare Act Text
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.Illustrations.No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
(a) A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
Exception 1.It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Exception 2.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Exception 3.Illustration.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.
Exception 4.It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Exception 5.Illustrations.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
(a) A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.
Exception 6.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.Illustrations.A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.
(e) But if A says “I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.
Exception 7.Illustration.It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders, a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier are within this exception.
Exception 8.Illustration.It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father, A is within this exception.
Exception 9.Illustrations.It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
Exception 10.It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explained in Simple Words
Section 356 BNS of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with defamation. It applies when a person makes or publishes an imputation about another person with the intention of harming, or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm, that person’s reputation. The law covers spoken words, written words, signs, visible representations, and other forms of publication.
In simple terms, if a statement lowers someone in the eyes of others, or is likely to do so, this section may be attracted. This provision is used in disputes involving allegations made in newspapers, social media, complaints, workplace communications, public speeches, and private publications that reach others. But not every harsh statement is defamation.
The law recognises several exceptions, such as truth made for public good, fair criticism, and good faith complaints to lawful authority. Its practical importance is high because reputation is treated as a legal interest, and a false or reckless allegation can lead to criminal liability as well as civil action.
Key Ingredients
- Making or publishing in any manner any imputation concerning any person
- Doing so by spoken words, words intended to be read, signs or visible representations
- Intention to harm the reputation of such person, or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm it
Punishment
🔒 None. Section 356(1) BNS prescribes no punishment: it defines defamation. The punishment is provided by Section 356(2) BNS, which punishes defamation with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
💰 None under this sub-section. Section 356(2) BNS provides fine in place of or in addition to simple imprisonment, or community service, and sets no limit.
Section 356(1) BNS is a definition provision and carries no punishment of its own. Defamation is punished under Section 356(2) BNS with simple imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service.
Real-World Example
When This Does Not Apply
- The imputation is true and it is for the public good that it be made or published
- The opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of public functions
- The imputation does not lower the moral or intellectual character, caste, calling or credit of the person in the estimation of others
- The person neither intended to harm reputation nor knew or had reason to believe the imputation would harm it
Previous Law
IPC 499 → Section 356(1) BNS
Section 499 IPC corresponds to Section 356(1) BNS. The definition now includes the words in any manner. The Fourth and Fifth Exceptions refer to a Court instead of a Court of Justice, and the Explanation to the Fourth Exception names a Magistrate instead of a Justice of the Peace. The ten Exceptions are numbered Exception 1 to Exception 10 without headings. Punishment is in Section 356(2) BNS.
Section 356(2) BNS: Punishment for defamation
▶
Bare Act Text
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.
Explained in Simple Words
Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the punishment for defamation. It applies when a person has committed defamation as defined under Section 356(1) BNS, and the law then provides the penalty that may follow. In simple terms, if someone makes a false and harmful statement that lowers another person’s reputation, this section sets out the legal consequence. The section is used in cases involving spoken words, written statements, signs, or visible representations that harm reputation.
It matters in personal disputes, business conflicts, media statements, and online allegations. The practical point is that defamation is not just a matter of hurt feelings. If the legal ingredients are proved, the person responsible can face criminal punishment, along with the reputational and financial consequences of a criminal case.
Key Ingredients
- Making or publishing in any manner any imputation concerning any person
- Intention to harm reputation, or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm reputation
Punishment
🔒 Simple imprisonment for up to two years, or community service.
💰 Fine in place of imprisonment, or both, or community service. The section sets no limit.
Whoever defames another is punishable with simple imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. The offence is non-cognizable and bailable. It is triable by the Court of Session on a complaint by the Public Prosecutor where the President, the Vice-President, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister is defamed in respect of his public functions, and by a Magistrate of the first class in every other case.
Real-World Example
When This Does Not Apply
- The imputation falls within one of the ten statutory Exceptions under Section 356(1) BNS, such as truth published for the public good
- The accused neither intended the imputation to harm reputation, nor knew or had reason to believe that it would cause such harm
- The accused did not make or publish any imputation concerning the person
Previous Law
IPC 500 → Section 356(2) BNS
Section 500 IPC corresponds to Section 356(2) BNS. The punishment of simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, is retained, and Section 356(2) BNS adds community service as an alternative penalty.
Section 356(3) BNS: Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory
▶
Bare Act Text
Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Explained in Simple Words
Section 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) this section applies where a person prints or engraves matter knowing that it is defamatory. It is aimed at the maker or publisher of the defamatory material, not merely the person who later circulates it. The law focuses on knowledge.
If the person printing or engraving knew the content was defamatory, liability can arise even if they did not write the original words. In practice, this section matters for printers, publishers, and others involved in producing books, pamphlets, notices, posters, or similar material. It is meant to stop people from using printing or engraving as a tool to spread harm to another person’s reputation.
The offence becomes serious when the printer acts with awareness of the defamatory nature of the content. A person who honestly prints material without such knowledge may have a different defence, depending on the facts. For clients, the key issue is usually proof of knowledge.
Investigators and courts look at the content, the surrounding circumstances, and whether the printer had reason to know what was being produced. This is why records, instructions, drafts, and communications can become very important in such cases.
Key Ingredients
- Printing or engraving any matter
- Knowledge or good reason to believe that the matter is defamatory of any person
- The matter amounting to defamation under Section 356(1) BNS
Punishment
🔒 Simple imprisonment for up to two years.
💰 Fine in place of imprisonment, or both. The section sets no limit.
Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory is punishable with simple imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable without court permission by the person defamed. The Court of Session tries the case where the matter concerns the President, the Vice-President, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister and the Public Prosecutor complains, and a Magistrate of the first class tries every other case.
Real-World Example
When This Does Not Apply
- The person did not print or engrave the matter
- The person neither knew nor had good reason to believe that the matter was defamatory
- The matter was not defamatory of any person under the statutory definition
Previous Law
IPC 501 → Section 356(3) BNS
Section 501 IPC corresponds to Section 356(3) BNS with identical wording and punishment. Community service, added for simple defamation under Section 356(2) BNS, is not provided for this offence.
Section 356(4) BNS: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter
▶
Bare Act Text
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Explained in Simple Words
Section 356(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the sale of printed or engraved material containing defamatory matter. It applies to a person who sells or offers for sale any such substance, knowing that it contains defamatory content. The focus is not on writing the defamatory content, but on circulating it through sale or offering for sale. This section matters because printed circulation can spread harm quickly and widely.
A bookseller, publisher, distributor, or even a person selling pamphlets can face liability if they knowingly deal with defamatory material. In practice, the prosecution must show both the defamatory nature of the material and the seller’s knowledge about its contents. The provision is meant to stop the commercial spread of defamatory publications, not ordinary innocent trade in printed goods.
Key Ingredients
- Selling or offering for sale a printed or engraved substance
- The substance containing matter defamatory of any person under Section 356(1) BNS
- Knowledge on the part of the seller that the substance contains such defamatory matter
Punishment
🔒 Simple imprisonment for up to two years.
💰 Fine in place of imprisonment, or both. The section sets no limit.
Selling or offering for sale a printed or engraved substance known to contain defamatory matter is punishable with simple imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable without court permission by the person defamed. The Court of Session tries the case where the matter concerns the President, the Vice-President, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister and the Public Prosecutor complains, and a Magistrate of the first class tries every other case.
Real-World Example
When This Does Not Apply
- The person did not sell or offer for sale the printed or engraved substance
- The person did not know that the substance contained defamatory matter
- The substance did not contain defamatory matter under the statutory definition
Previous Law
IPC 502 → Section 356(4) BNS
Section 502 IPC corresponds to Section 356(4) BNS with identical wording and punishment. Community service, provided for simple defamation under Section 356(2) BNS, is not added to this provision.
Have questions about Section 356 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 ·