Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 427, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 324 Mischief Close, with changes 70%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wrongful dispossession of or interference with the enjoyment of rights over land by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member constitutes an offense under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 without requiring the dispossession to be motivated by or 'related with the community' status of the victim; the plain language of the statute protects SC/ST members from all wrongful dispossession and interference with land rights. Destruction of standing crops on land through forcible tilling with tractors constitutes 'mischief' under Section 427 IPC when it causes loss or damage exceeding fifty rupees.
On this section: Punishment for mischief causing loss or damage of fifty rupees or upwards with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both. Applied to convict appellant for destroying sugarcane crops estimated to cause loss exceeding threshold amount.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or more; punishment up to two years imprisonment
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Mischief causing damage to property
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass violence and mob culpability, conviction of an abettor (non-principal assailant) for murder under Section 302/109 IPC can be sustained based on ocular evidence of exhortation if: (1) At least 2-3 or a clear majority of credible witnesses consistently depose about the exhortation to the actual shooter (Masalti test); (2) The evidence of exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable, not merely suspicion or tendency to implicate; (3) The medical and ocular evidence is not materially contradictory; (4) The abettor does not discharge the burden of establishing alibi or contrary narrative through defense evidence; and (5) Even if an unlawful assembly with common object of murder is not established, individual liability for abetment through direct exhortation can still be sustained. Furthermore, an ante-dated and ante-timed FIR does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if the core facts are corroborated by immediate wireless information sent from the scene; however, death sentence is not appropriate for abetment in mass violence cases where the abettor is not the principal assailant.
On this section: Mischief causing loss or damage; applied for damage to government vehicle
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence from multiple independent witnesses consistently establishes that an accused person exhorted another person to commit murder, and the exhortation is sufficient to instigate the act of murder, the accused can be held guilty of abetment of murder under Section 302/109 IPC even if the accused did not personally commit the act of murder. The test for conviction in such cases involving multiple offenders is that if the testimony is supported by 2-3 or more witnesses giving consistent account of the incident (Masalti test), conviction can be sustained. Medical evidence regarding bullet trajectory will not contradict trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence conclusively rules out the possibility of the circumstances described by eyewitnesses. In cases where FIR is suspected to be ante-dated and ante-timed, the court must carefully analyze the evidence supporting the prosecution case rather than discarding the entire prosecution version.
On this section: Mischief committed by unlawful assembly - Damage to District Magistrate's car
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Offence cited in charges against accused
-
Bheru Lal vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an eyewitness witness is interested and has exaggerated parts of their account, the evidence cannot be wholesale rejected if there is a ring of truth to the core version. The appreciation of evidence requires courts to carefully separate the chaff from the grain. Provided the court of facts recognizes the interested nature of the witness, the exaggerations can be disregarded while accepting the truthful core. Additionally, when injuries on an accused are simple and minor in nature (not serious or severe), the prosecution has no obligation under law to explain such injuries, and the witness's failure to mention minor injuries does not undermine the credibility of the entire prosecution narrative, particularly when the witness had limited opportunity to observe such minor wounds and was focused on the main events.
On this section: Mischief causing damage - criminal damage to property under Rs. 50
-
Vinay vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple accused armed with deadly weapons such as sickles and talwars cause grievous injuries to multiple victims, convictions under Sections 326 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are justified based on consistent testimony of injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence. However, in criminal cases involving closely related parties (such as real brothers) where both parties sustained injuries in a sudden quarrel in heat of passion, the principle of proportionality in sentencing permits reduction of custodial sentence to period already undergone with substitution of fine and victim compensation. Courts must liberally exercise power under Section 357(1) CrPC to award compensation to victims from fine amount imposed on accused, after assessing the accused's capacity to pay, as this power is independent and in addition to other sentences, not ancillary thereto.
On this section: Mischief Causing Damage to Property - Conviction confirmed as appellants damaged car glasses and tires during the incident; sentence reduced but conviction sustained
-
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a serious case (involving communal violence and explosive substances) has already spent considerable time in pre-trial custody (approximately 22 months), and the trial is still ongoing with no imminent conclusion, continued judicial custody ceases to serve any legitimate purpose. Bail may be granted with conditions ensuring regular court appearance and prohibition of activities disrupting communal harmony, striking a balance between individual liberty and public order. The gravity of charges alone does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention if the detention itself is no longer proportionate to trial progress and the period already spent.
On this section: Applied for property destruction caused during riots
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous and cannot be entertained once the probation period has been completed by the accused, as the court cannot grant the relief sought (cancellation of probation and enhancement of sentence) when the probation has already been undergone. In such circumstances, the court need not examine the legality or propriety of the original probation order.
On this section: Mischief causing damage - used to convict accused persons
-
Shahana Parveen vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A woman accused of extortion and criminal intimidation is entitled to regular bail when: (1) the evidence against her consists primarily of contradictory statements of the complainant; (2) the case falls within the Arnesh Kumar guidelines suggesting procedural defects in arrest; (3) the trial is expected to take considerable time; (4) she has no prior convictions; (5) she is entitled to the statutory concession for women under Section 437(1) Proviso of Cr.P.C.; and (6) the nature of offences and circumstances do not warrant continued detention.
On this section: Mischief causing loss or damage - bailable offence
-
Suresh& ORS. vs Civil Judge Jd Judicial Magistrate and Anotehr
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the basic ingredients of an offence are missing from the complaint itself, permitting such a complaint to continue and compelling the accused to face criminal trial would be totally unjustified and would constitute an abuse of process of law. Therefore, such proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. However, when allegations in a complaint, if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose prima facie commission of an offence involving disputed questions of fact, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the Magistrate's summoning order, as the appreciation of evidence and determination of facts is the function of the trial court.
On this section: Mischief causing damage. Court found prima facie case made out and allowed proceedings to continue.
-
Jangala Koteswara Rao at Koti vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed when the trial has already concluded and the matter is posted for judgment before the trial court, as the petition no longer serves any practical purpose at that stage of proceedings.
On this section: Charge of mischief causing loss or damage
-
Jangala Koteswara Rao at Koti vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal petition for quashing proceedings is filed in the High Court but the trial court has already substantially progressed with examination of prosecution witnesses, the High Court may close the criminal petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to participate in the ongoing trial rather than entertaining the petition for quashing, as the trial court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the charges.
On this section: Charge of mischief causing loss or damage
-
Soraba Police vs Nagaraj M H
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the sole witness in a criminal case (the complainant himself) testifies in a manner contradictory to the prosecution's case and fails to identify the accused or support the charges, and when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient corroborating evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Offense of causing mischief by damage to property. Court found insufficient evidence to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Raj Kumar Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of quashing application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court can only examine whether prima facie case is made out against the accused. Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. If prima facie case exists, the summoning order cannot be quashed. The accused must seek remedy through discharge application before trial court where all legal issues can be raised. The trial court's cognizance order is valid if it shows application of judicial mind and indicates material is sufficient to proceed.
On this section: Mischief causing damage to property - charge against accused in underlying complaint case
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.
-
… It is the prosecution's case that Salim Mulla's wife, Shama Mulla, along with some others, assaulted the police team when they were recording the panchnama at the gambling den. - 4. FIR 136 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 395, 307, 353, 332, 155, 109, 324, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, 1 Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act 1887,<sup>2</sup> Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and Sections 37 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 was registered in PS Rajarampuri, Kolhapur on the basis of a complaint made by one of the …
-
… P-1 and others. For the occurrence, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 18.07.2002, the registration of FIR/complaint was done in Crime No. 237/2002 at about 11.00 p.m. against six named accused and other identifiable ones for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The registered complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 4.15 p.m. the next day. - 5. P.W.64 took up the investigation, and accordingly arrested the accused, A-10, A-12 and A-13 on …
-
… P-1 and others. For the occurrence, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 18.07.2002, the registration of FIR/complaint was done in Crime No. 237/2002 at about 11.00 p.m. against six named accused and other identifiable ones for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The registered complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 4.15 p.m. the next day. - 5. P.W.64 took up the investigation, and accordingly arrested the accused, A-10, A-12 and A-13 on …
Questions about Section 427
What have the courts held on Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code?
Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli vs State of Gujarat (04 Dec 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for mischief causing loss or damage of fifty rupees or upwards with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both. Applied to convict appellant for destroying sugarcane crops estimated to cause loss exceeding threshold amount. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 427 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 427, section 427 IPC, section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 427 in bns and ipc 427 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli vs State of Gujarat (04 Dec 2008).
What should I read with Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 324 (Mischief), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 427, 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.