Two years into the transition, the mapping problem has stopped being a novelty and become an ordinary hazard of practice. Every criminal file opened today sits somewhere on a boundary: the offence under one code, the procedure possibly under another, the precedent in the numbering of a repealed statute.
This is a reference article. The mappings below are taken from the government's own concordance tables — the Bureau of Police Research and Development's IPC-to-BNS and CrPC-to-BNSS correspondence tables, and the NCRB table for the Evidence Act — and each row was checked against a second, independent government source before it was printed here.
Start with the one that can actually wreck a filing.
The Section 482 problem
| You mean | Old provision | New provision | But in the other code, that number is… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticipatory bail | CrPC 438 | BNSS 482 | BNSS 438 = calling for records in revision |
| Inherent powers of the High Court | CrPC 482 | BNSS 528 | BNSS 482 = anticipatory bail |
For four decades, "a 482 petition" meant one thing to every criminal practitioner in India: a petition invoking the High Court's inherent powers, usually to quash. Under the BNSS, Section 482 is anticipatory bail.
So the phrase is now ambiguous on its face, and the ambiguity is not academic — the two provisions go to different benches, follow different procedure, and seek different relief. The same problem runs in the other direction with 438: what was anticipatory bail under the CrPC is, under the BNSS, the revision-records provision that used to be CrPC 397.
Until the habit dies, name the code. "Section 482 BNSS" and "Section 482 CrPC" are both intelligible. "Section 482" no longer is.
Which code applies to your matter
Two separate questions, and conflating them is the commonest error in writing on this subject.
The offence: date of the offence governs
An offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC, even if the FIR is registered afterwards. That follows from BNS Section 358 (repeal and savings), Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which forbids retrospective criminal liability.
The Rajasthan High Court put it directly in Vijay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (Arun Monga J., 29 September 2024): if an FIR is registered on or after 1 July 2024 for an offence committed before that date, the FIR has to be registered under the provisions of the IPC.
This limb is not seriously disputed. Date of offence — not date of FIR, not date of filing.
The procedure: genuinely unsettled
BNSS Section 531(2)(a) saves only what was pending on 1 July 2024:
"Notwithstanding such repeal, if immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973..."
What that means for a step taken after 1 July 2024 in a matter arising from an older offence has divided the High Courts.
| Court | Case | Position taken |
|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan HC | Krishna Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (Jul 2024) | Law as at FIR registration governs |
| Rajasthan HC | Vijay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (Sep 2024) | If nothing was pending on 1.7.24, s.531(2)(a) is not attracted |
| Punjab & Haryana HC | XXX v. State of UT, Chandigarh (Jul 2024) | BNSS applies from 1.7.24, including to IPC cases |
| Kerala HC | Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala (Jul 2024) | Appeals filed on/after 1.7.24 governed by BNSS |
| Delhi HC | S. Rabban Alam v. CBI (2024) | Only pre-1.7.24 appeals continue under CrPC; issue left open |
| Delhi HC | Prince v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) | Anticipatory bail in pre-1.7.24 FIRs filed under BNSS |
| Bombay HC | Chowgule and Company v. State of Goa (2024) | Applications filed on/after 1.7.24 governed by BNSS |
| Madras HC | M. Appavu v. RM Babu Murugavel (Oct 2024) | Contra — "pending" cannot be given a restricted meaning |
No Supreme Court judgment settles this. Treat the position in your own High Court as the operative one, and do not assume a decision from another High Court travels.
There is a wrinkle worth knowing. The evidence code's savings clause is drafted wider than the procedure code's: BSA Section 170(2) saves any pending "application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal", where BNSS 531(2)(a) omits "proceeding". The two savings provisions are not coextensive, which means a matter can sit on different sides of the line for evidence and for procedure.
IPC to BNS
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has 358 sections across 20 chapters. Every row below appears in both the BPRD concordance and the Uttar Pradesh Police comparative table.
The provisions used most
| IPC | Offence | BNS |
|---|---|---|
| 302 | Punishment for murder | 103(1) |
| 304B | Dowry death | 80 |
| 306 | Abetment of suicide | 108 |
| 307 | Attempt to murder | 109 |
| 323 | Voluntarily causing hurt | 115(2) |
| 354 | Assault to outrage modesty of a woman | 74 |
| 376 | Punishment for rape | 64 |
| 379 | Punishment for theft | 303(2) |
| 406 | Criminal breach of trust | 316(2) |
| 409 | Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, agent | 316(5) |
| 420 | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property | 318(4) |
| 447 | Criminal trespass | 329(3) |
| 498A | Cruelty by husband or his relatives | 85 (+ 86) |
| 506 | Criminal intimidation | 351(2) / 351(3) |
Three traps in that table
IPC 302 is BNS 103(1), not "103". Sub-section (2) is a new offence with no IPC predecessor — murder by a group of five or more on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief. Citing bare "BNS 103" is imprecise in a charge and sloppy in a pleading.
IPC 498A became two sections. The government concordance states expressly that 498A "has been bifurcated into Sections 85 and 86." BNS 85 carries the offence; BNS 86 is headed "Cruelty defined." A pleading that cited 498A alone now needs both.
IPC 506 maps to two sub-sections. The punishment limbs are BNS 351(2) and 351(3); the definition of criminal intimidation, formerly IPC 503, is at 351(1).
The wider set
| IPC | BNS | IPC | BNS | IPC | BNS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | 3(5) | 299 | 100 | 383 | 308(1) |
| 107 | 45 | 300 | 101 | 384 | 308(2) |
| 109 | 49 | 303 | 104 | 390 | 309(1) |
| 120A | 61(1) | 304 | 105 | 392 | 309(4) |
| 120B | 61(2) | 304A | 106(1) | 393 | 309(5) |
| 121 | 147 | 321 | 115(1) | 394 | 309(6) |
| 141 | 189(1) | 322 | 117(1) | 405 | 316(1) |
| 143 | 189(2) | 324 | 118(1) | 407 | 316(3) |
| 146 | 191(1) | 325 | 117(2) | 408 | 316(4) |
| 147 | 191(2) | 326 | 118(2) | 415 | 318(1) |
| 149 | 190 | 332 | 121 | 417 | 318(2) |
| 188 | 223 | 340 | 127(1) | 418 | 318(3) |
| 191 | 227 | 341 | 126(2) | 441 | 329(1) |
| 192 | 228 | 342 | 127(2) | 448 | 329(4) |
| 193 | 229 | 353 | 132 | 449 | 332 |
| 195 | 231 | 354A | 75 | 463 | 336(1) |
| 201 | 238 | 354B | 76 | 465 | 336(2) |
| 212 | 249 | 354C | 77 | 468 | 336(3) |
| 279 | 281 | 354D | 78 | 470 | 340 |
| 370 | 143 | 375 | 63 | 494 | 82 |
| 376(3) | 65(1) | 376A | 66 | 499 | 356(1) |
| 376AB | 65(2) | 376B | 67 | 500 | 356(2) |
| 376C | 68 | 378 | 303(1) | 501 | 356(3) |
| 503 | 351(1) | 502 | 356(4) | 507 | 351(4) |
| 509 | 79 | 511 | 62 |
Where the substance changed, not just the number
The concordance flags these as substantive, and they are the ones where reading across from an old commentary will mislead you:
- BNS 63 (ex-IPC 375) — the age in Exception 2 was raised from 15 to 18.
- BNS 105 (ex-IPC 304) — a minimum of five years' imprisonment introduced.
- BNS 104 (ex-IPC 303) — life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life now available as an alternative to death.
- BNS 304 — "Snatching" — an entirely new offence with no IPC predecessor.
- BNS 117 — gains sub-sections with no IPC equivalent, including grievous hurt by a group.
CrPC to BNSS
| CrPC | Subject | BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| 41A | Notice of appearance before police officer | 35(3) |
| 154 | Information in cognizable cases (FIR) | 173 |
| 156(3) | Magistrate's power to order investigation | 175(3) |
| 161 | Examination of witnesses by police | 180 |
| 164 | Recording of confessions and statements | 183 |
| 173 | Police report on completion of investigation | 193 |
| 200 | Examination of complainant | 223 |
| 202 | Postponement of issue of process | 225 |
| 397 | Calling for records to exercise powers of revision | 438 |
| 437 | Bail in non-bailable offence | 480 |
| 438 | Anticipatory bail | 482 |
| 439 | Special powers of High Court and Sessions as to bail | 483 |
| 436A | Maximum period of detention of undertrial | 479 |
| 482 | Inherent powers of the High Court | 528 |
Others confirmed in the concordance: 106→125 · 125→144 · 135→154 · 137→156 · 148→167 · 156→175 · 157→176 · 158→177 · 159→178 · 160→179 · 190→210 · 201→224 · 203→226 · 204→227 · 207→230 · 208→231 · 209→232 · 227→250 · 228→251 · 229→252 · 235→258 · 236→259 · 237→260 · 238→261 · 239→262 · 240→263 · 241→264 · 242→265 · 265A→289 · 357→395 · 396→437 · 398→439 · 399→440 · 441A→486 · 468→514 · 481→527 · 483→529 · 484→531.
New timelines the BNSS introduced
These have no CrPC predecessor or materially changed one, and several are enforceable deadlines rather than exhortations.
| Requirement | BNSS | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Zero FIR — registration irrespective of where the offence occurred | 173(1) | No territorial bar |
| FIR by electronic communication | 173(1)(ii) | New |
| Preliminary enquiry before FIR | 173(3) | For cognizable offences punishable ≥3 and <7 years |
| Forensic expert to visit the scene | 176(3) | Mandatory where punishable 7 years or more |
| Investigation to be completed | 193(2) | 2 months — extended to POCSO ss.4, 6, 8, 10, 12 |
| Inform informant/victim of progress | 193(3)(ii) | 90 days, by any means including electronic |
| Supply of police report and documents to accused | 230 | Free, "in no case beyond 14 days"; also to the victim if represented |
| Discharge application (Sessions) | 250(1) | 60 days from commencement under s.232 |
| Framing of charge (Sessions) | 251 | 60 days from first hearing on charge |
| Discharge application (warrant case) | 262(1) | 60 days from supply of copies under s.230 |
| Judgment after arguments conclude | 258 | 30 days, extendable to 45 for reasons recorded |
| Arrest of the infirm or those over 60 | 35(7) | Prior permission of an officer not below DSP, where punishable under 3 years |
The one worth putting in a diary is Section 230: the police report and documents must reach the accused free of cost and "in no case beyond 14 days", and the provision now extends the same entitlement to the victim where represented by an advocate.
Evidence Act 65B is now BSA 63 — and it changed
| IEA 1872 | BSA 2023 |
|---|---|
| 65A | 62 |
| 65B | 63 |
| 126 | 132(1), (2) |
| 127 | 132(3) |
| 128 | 133 |
| 129 | 134 |
| 45 (expert opinion) | 39 |
Three changes in Section 63 that matter every time you tender an electronic record:
The certificate goes in every time. Section 63(4) requires the certificate to be submitted with the electronic record "at each instance where it is being submitted for admission." Not once, at the outset — each time.
Two signatures, one of them an expert. The certificate must purport to be signed by "a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert." Under IEA 65B only the person responsible for the device signed. This is in the enacted text, not commentary.
The format is prescribed. The Schedule sets out the certificate in two parts — Part A completed by the party (device make, model, serial number, IMEI/UIN/MAC/Cloud ID, a declaration on lawful control and proper working, and the hash value with the algorithm ticked from SHA1, SHA256, MD5 or other, with the hash report enclosed), and Part B completed by the expert, repeating the particulars and the hash with name, designation and signature.
Note also BSA Section 2(1)(d), which now defines "document" to include electronic and digital records, with an illustration expressly covering emails, server logs, files on computers and smartphones, messages, websites, locational evidence and voicemail.
A note on how this article was checked
Every mapping above was read off the government concordance tables directly and confirmed against a second government source before printing.
That precaution was not theoretical. During this research, an automated summary of the NCRB's own correspondence table returned "IEA 126 → BSA 126". The correct answer is BSA 132. The tool had read a two-column table in the wrong direction and reported the result with complete confidence. It was caught only by going back to the raw table and checking the header row.
That is precisely the failure this transition invites, and precisely why a mapping you cannot trace to a source is worth nothing. If you take a section number from this article into a filing, open the concordance and confirm it — as you would want your opponent to have done.
What Synapse does with this
The mapping problem is a database problem, not a reasoning problem, and it does not get solved by a model being larger.
Synapse indexes both numbering systems and the correspondence between them, so a search on the section you know returns the provision that now governs — in either direction. Search 498A and you get BNS 85 and 86. Search BNSS 482 and you get anticipatory bail, with CrPC 438 alongside it and the case law decided under the old number still attached, because the provision is textually unchanged.
Every provision opens to its source text. Nothing is asserted that was not retrieved.
Mappings taken from the Bureau of Police Research and Development correspondence tables for BNS–IPC and BNSS–CrPC, cross-checked against the Uttar Pradesh Police comparative table, and from the NCRB correspondence table for the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The three codes commenced on 1 July 2024 by notifications dated 23 February 2024 (Gazette of India, 24 February 2024), BNS excepting Section 106(2). This article is general information, not legal advice. Verify every provision against the bare act before relying on it in a filing.