Warrant for levy of fine
Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with warrant for levy of fine. When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, but no such payment has been made, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may--- (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale o The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, but no such payment has been made, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may---
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 395.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.
(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law:
Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.
Section 461, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 421 Warrant for levy of fine Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
Kumaran vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When compensation is ordered under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the deeming fiction contained in Section 431 Cr.P.C. extends the application of Section 421(1) and Section 70 IPC to such compensation. Consequently, compensation remains recoverable even after the accused has undergone the default imprisonment sentence prescribed for non-payment, without the necessity for recording special reasons in writing. This is because the proviso to Section 421(1), as amended following the 41st Law Commission Report, creates a disjunctive category for compensation orders that operates independently of the requirement for special reasons.
On this section: Provides procedure for recovery of fine through warrant; proviso restricts warrant issuance after default sentence undergone unless special reasons recorded or compensation ordered
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Cited to show recovery mechanism for fine imposed under Section 138
-
K. A. Abbas H. S. A vs Sabu Joseph
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, when read in conjunction with Sections 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C. and Section 64 of IPC, empowers courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation ordered to be paid to a victim. Such default sentence is an enforcement mechanism, not a substantive sentence, and its imposition is both the power and duty of courts considering the nature of offence, circumstances of commission, the offender's capacity to pay, and the principle that the object of compensation is to provide total justice to victims. The case law establishing this position, particularly Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1989) and its subsequent reiterations, represents settled law that has been followed by the Supreme Court for over two decades and cannot be overruled by isolated contrary decisions at High Court level.
On this section: Provides modes of recovery of fine - attachment and sale of property or realization as arrears of land revenue. Interpreted in conjunction with Section 431 to support default sentence for compensation.
-
Sabu Joseph vs K. A. Abbas
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code can impose a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of the compensation amount ordered, as such compensation is recoverable as if it were a fine under Section 431 Cr.P.C read with Section 421 and Section 64 IPC, and such default sentence serves as a mode of enforcement to ensure accused pays compensation to the victim. The legislative intention reflected in Sections 357(3), 421, 431 and 64 read together clearly empowers courts to impose default sentences for non-payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3).
On this section: Provides modes of recovery of fine including warrant for levy and attachment. Court held this section applies to recovery of compensation under Section 431.
-
A. K. Devaiah vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and it is shown through consistent testimony of credible witnesses that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband for or in connection with a demand for dowry, the mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies, shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption. The testimony of the deceased's close family members regarding the dowry demand, the cruelty inflicted, and the harassment endured constitutes admissible and credible evidence to establish the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. Once these three ingredients (abnormal death within seven years, cruelty/harassment for dowry before death, and the causal nexus) are proven, the legal presumption of dowry death operates automatically unless rebutted by the accused, and a trial court's acquittal based on suspicion and conjecture without properly appreciating such evidence is wholly perverse and liable to be set aside by appellate courts.
On this section: Recovery of fines - Provisions used to direct recovery of dowry amount and value of ornaments as if fine imposed by Court.
-
R. Mohan vs A. K. Vijaya Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The court possesses the inherent power and authority under Sections 357(3), 421, and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read in conjunction with Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation ordered by it. This power is not ancillary to other sentences but stands independently and is essential to the efficacy of compensation orders. Without such enforcement mechanism, compensation orders would be rendered illusory and the purpose of providing relief to crime victims would be frustrated. Therefore, a sentence in default of payment of compensation is legally valid and enforceable.
On this section: Warrant for levy of fine and default sentences for non-payment of fines; interpreted by Court as applicable by analogy to compensation orders
-
A. K. Vijaya Kumar vs R. Mohan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment without a fine component under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it possesses the legal power and authority to award an alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the compensation amount ordered by that court, because (1) such power is necessary to give effect to Section 357(3)'s objective of ensuring victim compensation is not rendered illusory; (2) the absence of an enforcement mechanism with deterrent effect would frustrate the entire purpose of the compensation order; (3) Section 431 of CrPC puts compensation awards on par with fines for recovery purposes, and since Section 64 of IPC permits default imprisonment for non-payment of fines, the same principle applies to compensation; (4) the court may impose a reasonable compensation amount and provide reasonable time for payment, enforcing the order by imposing a default sentence, thereby ensuring both victim relief and proportionate deterrence against the offender.
On this section: Provides for recovery of fine through warrant for levy by attachment/sale of movable property or through Collector for immovable property/arrears. Court examined whether this section's proviso (providing for default sentence) applies to compensation orders through Section 431.
-
Vijayan vs Sadanandan K.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While awarding compensation under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts are within their jurisdiction to include a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation. The combined reading of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., Section 431 Cr.P.C. (which makes money other than fine recoverable as if it were a fine when recovery method is not otherwise expressly provided), and Section 64 IPC (which empowers courts to direct that in default of payment of fine, offender shall suffer imprisonment) authorizes courts to impose default sentences for non-payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3).
On this section: Provides modes for recovery of fine through attachment and sale of movable property or recovery through Collector as arrears of land revenue; applicable to compensation recovery under Section 431
-
Shiv Dei vs State of Hp
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused released on bail files an exemption application citing compelling circumstances (such as natural calamity) and the bail conditions expressly reserve liberty to seek such exemption, the trial court cannot reject the application without proper reasoning, verification of facts, or consideration of the explanation provided. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and renders the subsequent bail cancellation and surety penalty orders unsustainable. A surety cannot be held liable for penalty when the accused has complied with the procedural requirement of seeking exemption through appropriate application.
On this section: Warrant for attachment and sale of property to realize penalty as arrears of revenue; Court set aside this direction as the underlying penalty order was unsustainable
-
Fakruddin vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 421, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Compensation awarded under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 must be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 421 and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, through attachment and sale of movable property or realization as arrears of land revenue. Imprisonment cannot be imposed as a default punishment for non-payment of such compensation, as such an order would be patently illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions. Additionally, the quantum of compensation must be reasonable and proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence, and courts have discretion to reduce excessive compensation amounts in the interest of justice.
On this section: Recovery of fine by attachment and sale of movable property; proper mechanism for recovery of compensation in default
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 461
What have the courts held on Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kumaran vs State of Kerala (05 May 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 421, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides procedure for recovery of fine through warrant; proviso restricts warrant issuance after default sentence undergone unless special reasons recorded or compensation ordered. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 461, section 461 BNSS, section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 461 bnss in crpc and s 461 bnss. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kumaran vs State of Kerala (05 May 2017).
What should I read with Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 395 (Order to pay compensation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 421 (Warrant for levy of fine), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 461 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 461, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.