Section 358: (1) The Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed. 45 of 1860.

savings.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Code referred to in sub-section (1), it shall not
affect,—
(a) the previous operation of the Code so repealed or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or
(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred
under the Code so repealed; or
(c) any penalty, or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed
against the Code so repealed; or
(d) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, or punishment; or
(e) any proceeding, investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty or
punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted,
continued or enforced, and any such penalty may be imposed as if that Code had not
been repealed.
(3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said
Code shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of
this Sanhita.
(4) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or
affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act,1897 with regard to the 10 of 1897.
effect of the repeal.

—————

DIWAKAR SINGH,
Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel to the Govt. of India.

UPLOADED BY THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI–110002
AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI–110054.

Kshitiz
MGIPMRND—531GI(S3)—25-12-2023.
Digitally signed by Kshitiz Mohan
DN: c=IN, st=Delhi,

Summary

Section 358 repeals the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but safeguards continuity by preserving rights, liabilities and proceedings that arose under the old code. The repeal does not affect actions taken or penalties imposed under the IPC, and any ongoing investigation, trial or remedy continues as if the IPC were still in force. Acts performed under the IPC are treated as if done under the corresponding provisions of the BNS. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and general savings provisions continue to apply, ensuring smooth transition and legal contin

Key Provisions

• Sub-section (1): This clause formally repeals the colonial-era Indian Penal Code of 1860 and replaces it with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, symbolizing a major shift in India’s criminal jurisprudence.
• Sub-section (2)(a)–(e): Despite repeal, all rights, obligations, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, and punishments incurred under the IPC remain valid; ongoing investigations, trials, or legal remedies will continue as if the IPC were still in force; and proceedings under the old code may result in convictions and sentences under its provisions.
• Sub-section (3): Actions done or orders made under the IPC are deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the BNS, preventing any legal vacuum or confusion about the legal basis of past acts.
• Sub-section (4): The savings outlined are illustrative and do not limit the general principles of continuity provided by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or other laws; general savings provisions continue to apply.

Background and Significance

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 served as the backbone of criminal law in India for over a century and a half. Drafted under British colonial rule, the IPC unified disparate local laws and set out comprehensive definitions, offences and penalties across the country. While it was revolutionary for its time, critics have long noted that the colonial context shaped its provisions and language, leading to outdated concepts and sections that no longer resonate with a modern, independent nation. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), enacted in 2023, represents a sweeping overhaul of the criminal law framework. Section 358 is a linchpin of this new code: it repeals the entire IPC and ushers in the BNS as the primary penal statute. This transition symbolises the evolution of India’s criminal justice system from a colonial legacy to a homegrown legal framework more attuned to contemporary Indian values, constitutional protections and technological realities.

Section 358 not only marks the repeal of the IPC but also ensures that rights and liabilities accrued under the old law do not vanish overnight. Without such savings clauses, countless cases, investigations and obligations would be thrown into uncertainty. By preserving these, the legislature maintains continuity and prevents legal chaos. Those accused of offences under the IPC before the BNS came into force will continue to be tried and punished under the old law; victims and litigants retain their remedies; and orders passed under the IPC remain valid. For example, Section 1 of the BNS sets out the short title and commencement of the new code commencement of the new code, while Section 2 contains definitions that will govern future prosecutions. Reading Section 358 alongside these provisions underscores how the new code is phased in without undermining pending cases or definitions that were in play under the IPC.

The repeal clause in Section 358 is therefore more than a procedural footnote; it reflects a considered legislative policy. In many jurisdictions, repeal provisions are accompanied by savings clauses to avoid unfairness to parties who relied on earlier laws. Here, the lawmakers explicitly provide that any investigation, trial or other remedy may continue as if the IPC were still in force. They also stipulate that any acts performed or orders made under the IPC will be treated as if they were done under the corresponding provisions of the BNS. This ensures there is no gap or ambiguity in the legal basis for past acts, preserving the rule of law and preventing challenges to convictions or acquittals. In practical terms, police investigations initiated under IPC sections will continue under those provisions until concluded, and courts will impose sentences authorised by the IPC.

Another key aspect of Section 358 is its reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The General Clauses Act contains interpretative rules that apply when a statute is repealed, ensuring that such repeal does not revive or affect prior laws, or impact rights and obligations accrued under the repealed statute. By invoking Section 6, the BNS drafters reinforce that the standard principles of statutory interpretation will operate alongside the specific savings listed in Section 358. The clause also states that the enumerated savings (sub-sections 2(a) to (e)) do not limit the general application of such principles. This drafting technique underscores the intention to provide a broad safety net, so that any matter not expressly saved under Section 358 may still fall within the scope of Section 6 or other general savings provisions.

Replacing a foundational statute like the IPC inevitably invites scrutiny and debate. Some commentators worry about the logistical challenges of transitioning hundreds of thousands of ongoing cases from the IPC to the BNS, while others welcome the opportunity to correct colonial-era injustices and modernise archaic language. Section 358 serves as a balancing act between these perspectives: it permits the BNS to come into force without abruptly disrupting existing prosecutions and rights. By doing so, it mitigates concerns about retrospective application of law, which is generally disfavoured in criminal jurisprudence. Moreover, the clause signals that the repeal is forward-looking; once the BNS is fully operative, new offences will be prosecuted under its provisions, gradually phasing out reliance on the IPC.

Finally, Section 358 invites readers to engage with other provisions of the BNS to understand the broader legislative landscape. For instance, definitions of key terms like “public servant” and “offence” appear in Section 2, and procedural rules for investigations and trials are scattered across subsequent sections and chapters. The transition from the IPC to the BNS affects not just substantive offences but also evidentiary rules, procedural safeguards and sentencing norms. To appreciate the full implications of Section 358, one should explore related sections on jurisdiction, commencement and definitions, and compare them with the equivalent provisions in the repealed code. Together, these sections form a cohesive blueprint for criminal law in modern India.