Tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury
Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury. Whoever removes, destroys, defaces or adds to any property mark, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever removes, destroys, defaces or adds to any property mark, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 346, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 489 Tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Removing, destroying or defacing property mark with intent to cause injury. | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Massa Singh vs Union of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 489, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Matters concerning passport issuance for individuals with pending or concluded criminal investigations should be decided by the trial court in accordance with Central Government Notification No. 570 dated 25.08.1993, rather than by the High Court through writ jurisdiction. The trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate the applicability of the notification to the specific circumstances of the case.
On this section: Additional charges in the 1992 FIR; Section 411 also cited in the 2014 FIR
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 489, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in two separate trials for two distinct offences under two different enactments arising from the same transaction or the same basic criminal act, the court has discretion under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively, particularly where the evidence in both cases is substantially the same and the offences are intimately connected. The exercise of this discretion should be guided by the totality principle, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the duration of litigation, and the principle that Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. The single transaction rule applies even when the offences are under different enactments, provided the underlying criminal act is the same.
On this section: Dealing with counterfeit currency notes; offence for which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 346
What have the courts held on Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Massa Singh vs Union of India (30 Apr 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 489, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Additional charges in the 1992 FIR; Section 411 also cited in the 2014 FIR. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2018 to 2024.
Is Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 346, section 346 BNS, section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 346 2 and 346 bns in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Massa Singh vs Union of India (30 Apr 2024).
What should I read with Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 489 (Tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 346, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.