IPC §25 → BNS §2

BNS Section 2(9) carries the same operative substantive condition in modern definitions-section format: 'fraudulently' means doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise. The exhaustive but not otherwise tail is preserved verbatim.

IPC Section 25 used a third-person formulation: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. BNS Section 2(9) carries the same operative substantive condition in modern definitions-section format: 'fraudulently' means doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise. Three drafting normalisations are visible: (i) the definition-frame inversion (A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if → fraudulently means doing anything) is the same pattern locked in IPC 24 → BNS 2(7); (ii) intent is replaced by intention, a synonymous noun substitution that does not shift the operative threshold; (iii) a thing is replaced by anything — both function as indefinite object placeholders rather than enumerated sets, so this is normalisation rather than envelope expansion. The exhaustive but not otherwise tail is preserved verbatim, confirming the closed nature of the test in both texts.