Buying or disposing of any person as a slave
Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with buying or disposing of any person as a slave. Whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as a slave, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as a slave, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 370, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
No provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is textually close to this one. No close match found
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Ritu Chugh vs The State (nct Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of facilitating rape under Section 376D IPC and human trafficking under Section 370 IPC are disclosed in the FIR, and the accused's conduct appears to have facilitated such grave offences, pre-arrest bail should be denied, as the gravity of the offences and the statutory punishment framework (minimum 20 years for rape facilitation, minimum 7 years for trafficking) disentitle the accused to such relief.
On this section: Human trafficking - the court noted that this offence was added during investigation, punishable for a term not less than seven years. The petitioner's alleged coercion of the prosecutrix into sexual relationships and threats regarding intimate photographs fall within this provision.
-
Ketan Ramanlal Doshi vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Property owners are entitled to possession of their premises under Section 457 Criminal Procedure Code despite criminal proceedings against licensees, provided the application for sealing was made under an inapplicable legal provision. The proper legal framework for sealing premises in prostitution cases is Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, not Section 105E Cr.P.C, which applies only to cases with reciprocal international arrangements. Licensees' rights are limited to contractual remedies under the Leave and License Agreement and cannot override the owner's fundamental property rights.
On this section: Cited as the basis for criminal charges against the accused in the underlying FIR for human trafficking and abetment
-
Aaftab Unnisa Begum vs State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges or considering discharge applications, the court should consider the allegations on face value based on victim statements and prima facie material without conducting a roving enquiry. Confessional statements of co-accused, while not substantive evidence, can serve as corroborative material to establish prima facie case for continuation of trial. The court's power to amend or add charges under Section 216 CrPC after framing charges is valid and does not prejudice the accused's right to fair trial, provided Section 217 CrPC is complied with for recall of witnesses.
On this section: Trafficking in persons; charge added by lower court as per High Court directions in Crl.P. No. 3158 of 2015
-
State Government vs JULAY SHAH
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of child labor and trafficking, the testimony of the alleged victims is fundamental; if victims turn hostile and procedural lapses exist (like failure to examine parents or independent witnesses), the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
On this section: Trafficking of minors, unlawful compulsory labor, and wrongful confinement for 10+ days.
-
State Government vs MO. SADDAM
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials concerning child labor and trafficking, the failure of the victims to identify the accused or confirm the labor, coupled with unauthenticated digital evidence, necessitates acquittal due to the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Trafficking of more than one minor, wrongful confinement, and unlawful compulsory labor.
-
Ballu @ Balram Kesharwani vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be refused in heinous offenses like gang rape and POCSO violations when there is credible evidence of the accused's identification supported by official witness testimony.
On this section: Substantive charges for human trafficking, gang rape, and common intention.
-
Mahavir Yadav vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an anticipatory bail application has been previously dismissed and there is no change in circumstances since that dismissal, and the petitioner has already filed a surrender application before the trial court, the High Court will not reconsider the bail application and will dismiss it.
On this section: Offence of human trafficking; the charges against the petitioner fall under this section
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… They further submit that the girls had gone to work because of poverty and no force was applied. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that since the girls were minor, aged about less than 18 years, and no consent was taken from their parents, the case is covered under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Section 370 IPC is concerned, age is not the constraint. 4. The FIR is at the instance of PW-1 (Geeta Honhaga). The informant is the mother of one of the girl who went to New Delhi. She stated that her girl went missing. She in search of the girl went to the school and when the …
Questions about Section 370
What have the courts held on Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ritu Chugh vs The State (nct Delhi) (30 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Human trafficking - the court noted that this offence was added during investigation, punishable for a term not less than seven years. The petitioner's alleged coercion of the prosecutrix into sexual relationships and threats regarding intimate photographs fall within this provision. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2016 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 370, section 370 IPC, section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 370 in bns and ipc 370 and 370a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ritu Chugh vs The State (nct Delhi) (30 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 370, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.