Section 462 IPC: Offence by Person Entrusted with Custody of Property

Section 462 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribed enhanced punishment where the offence described in Section 461 was committed by a person who had been entrusted with custody of the closed receptacle containing, or believed to contain, property.

Historical applicability: This article explains the IPC position applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The IPC was repealed by the BNS, subject to the repeal-and-savings provisions governing prior acts, liabilities, investigations and proceedings.

Text of Section 462 IPC

Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Meaning and scope of Section 462

The provision dealt with a specific aggravated form of dishonestly breaking open or unfastening a receptacle. The distinguishing feature was entrustment: the accused had custody of the closed receptacle but did not have authority to open it. Liability required the opening or unfastening to be done dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief.

Section 462 therefore operated in conjunction with the subject matter covered by Section 461 IPC, but prescribed a higher maximum punishment because the person committing the act had been entrusted with custody.

Essential ingredients

For Section 462 IPC to apply, the material facts had to establish that the accused was entrusted with a closed receptacle; the receptacle contained property or was believed by the accused to contain property; the accused had no authority to open it; the accused broke open or unfastened it; and the act was done dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief.

Relevant legal expressions

Dishonestly

Under Section 24 IPC, an act was done dishonestly when it was done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person.

Mischief

Section 425 IPC defined mischief in substance as causing destruction of property, or a change in property or its situation that destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, with the required intention or knowledge of likely wrongful loss or damage.

Entrustment and lack of authority

Section 462 specifically required custody by entrustment together with absence of authority to open the receptacle. Mere physical access to a receptacle was not, by itself, the complete statutory formulation.

Punishment and classification under the pre-BNS law

Maximum punishment	Imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.
Cognizability	Non-cognizable under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Bail	Bailable.
Triable by	Magistrate of the first class.

Relationship between Sections 461 and 462 IPC

Section 461 IPC addressed dishonestly or mischievously breaking open or unfastening a closed receptacle containing or believed to contain property. Section 462 dealt with the same core conduct where the offender was a person entrusted with custody of that receptacle and lacked authority to open it. The entrusted-custody circumstance increased the maximum imprisonment from two years under Section 461 to three years under Section 462.

Pre-BNS legal context

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 governed substantive criminal offences before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 took effect on 1 July 2024. For conduct and proceedings falling within the IPC repeal-and-savings framework, the prior law can remain relevant. This page is intentionally focused on the legal position before implementation of the BNS.

Note: This article is a general explanation of the statutory provision and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular case.