Sections 410-414 IPC vs Section 317 BNS — Stolen Property

In India, Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 410 to 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The offences and punishments are unchanged, but the definition of "stolen property" in Section 317(1) now also covers property obtained by cheating.

At a glance

RI = rigorous imprisonment. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 411 to 414 IPC identically (cognizable and non-bailable after tracing its "Ditto" entries to the Section 406 row; any Magistrate for 411 and 414; Court of Session for 412 and 413).

What changed

• Expanded — Section 317(1) (IPC 410): "Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery" becomes "Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating". On a reading of the text, a person who dishonestly receives property that someone obtained by cheating can now be charged under Section 317(2). Under Section 410 IPC that property was not "stolen property" unless it fell within another limb.
• Minor edit — Section 317(1): the quotation marks around "stolen property" are dropped, and the final sentence ("But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled...") is joined to the first with ", but,". The rule that property ceases to be stolen property once it returns to a person legally entitled to its possession, and the words "within or without India", are carried over.
• Identical — Sections 317(2) to (5) (IPC 411 to 414): the same words and punishments, now as sub-sections of one section.
• Identical — classification and compounding: the BNSS First Schedule and Section 359(1) BNSS treat each sub-section as the CrPC treated its IPC counterpart.
• Modified (procedure) — summary trial: Section 283(1) BNSS covers receiving (317(2)) and assisting concealment (317(5)) where the value does not exceed twenty thousand rupees. Section 260(1) CrPC's limit was two thousand rupees. The BNSS says the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class "shall try" such cases summarily; the CrPC said "may, if he thinks fit".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 410 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India.

Extract, Section 317 BNS, sub-sections (1) and (2):

(1) Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India, but, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.

(2) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

How it works — the ingredients

Step 1 — Is it stolen property (Section 317(1))? Property becomes stolen property if its possession was transferred by theft (Section 303), extortion (Section 308), robbery (Section 309) or cheating (Section 318), or if it was criminally misappropriated (Section 314) or subjected to criminal breach of trust (Section 316). It does not matter whether this happened in or outside India. It ceases to be stolen property once it comes back into the possession of a person legally entitled to possess it.

Step 2 — the offence.

• Receiving or retaining (317(2)) — the accused (i) dishonestly (ii) receives or retains (iii) stolen property, (iv) knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen. "Retains" covers a person who received the property innocently but keeps it after learning it was stolen (Shiv Kumar, para 15: initial possession "may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable").
• Dacoity property (317(3)) — receiving or retaining property known or believed to have been transferred by dacoity. It also covers receiving from a person known or believed to belong, or to have belonged, to a gang of dacoits, property known or believed to have been stolen.
• Habitual dealing (317(4)) — habitually receiving or dealing in property known or believed to be stolen.
• Assisting (317(5)) — voluntarily assisting in concealing, disposing of or making away with property known or believed to be stolen.

Proof of knowledge. Section 119(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Illustration (a) — carried over from Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — lets the court presume that "a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession". The presumption is permissive ("may presume"). Limbaji (below) shows how courts choose between the thief and receiver inferences.

Neighbouring provisions: the underlying offences in Sections 303 to 318 BNS; and Section 13 BNS on enhanced punishment for a repeat offender (not covered here).

What this means in practice

For the owner of the property (complainant)

• Receiving stolen property is cognizable, so the police may investigate without a Magistrate's order. Section 35(1)(e) BNSS lets the police arrest without warrant a person in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property, and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to it.
• Receiving (317(2)) and assisting concealment (317(5)) may be compounded by "the owner of the property stolen" under Section 359(1) BNSS without the court's permission. Sections 317(3) and 317(4) cannot be compounded.
• Under Section 201(5) BNSS (formerly Section 181(5) CrPC), an offence that includes possession of stolen property may be tried where the offence was committed or where any person who received or retained it, knowing or believing it stolen, possessed it.

For the buyer who acted innocently

• If the seller is convicted of theft or of receiving stolen property, and money was taken from the seller on arrest, the court may under Section 499 BNSS pay a buyer who did not know or have reason to believe the property was stolen, up to the price paid, once the property is restored to its owner. Section 395(1)(d) BNSS lets fine be used to compensate a bona fide purchaser.

For the accused and defence advocate

• All forms are non-bailable, so bail is at the court's discretion. Section 479(1) BNSS (release after one-half of the maximum, or one-third for a first-time offender) applies to Sections 317(2) and 317(5). On a reading of the text, it does not apply to 317(3) and 317(4), which carry imprisonment for life.
• For property worth up to twenty thousand rupees, expect a summary trial under Section 283(1) BNSS, subject to Section 283(3).
• The defence case usually turns on knowledge or reason to believe (see Shiv Kumar and Hiralal Babulal Soni) and on proof that the property seized is the property stolen.
• Where the predicate is cheating, note the classification gap. The BNSS First Schedule lists cheating under Section 318(2) as non-cognizable and bailable, while receiving the resulting property under Section 317(2) is cognizable and non-bailable.

Judgments that still matter

Limbaji and Others v. State of Maharashtra, [2001] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 672 (2001 INSC 611) — 14 December 2001. R. C. Lahoti and P. Venkatarama Reddi JJ. considered whether the recovery of a murdered man's ornaments at the accused's instance supported a presumption that they were only receivers under Section 411 IPC (the trial court's view) or the robbers and murderers (the High Court's view). The Court held that the presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act "should not be confined to their involvement in the offence of receiving the stolen property under Section 411" on those facts. It convicted them of robbery with hurt under Section 394 IPC. It declined to extend the presumption to murder. The report uses lettered and numbered headings, not paragraph numbers. The Illustration is repeated in Section 119(1) BSA.

Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court, 7 September 2022. K. M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy JJ. set aside a conviction under Section 411 IPC of a utensil seller found with articles from a looted truck. The Court held that the "believe" factor is "of stellar import". It is "not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen", or that he failed to make enough inquiries (para 15). It applied the three requirements stated in Trimbak v. State of M.P. (1954) (para 21), and held that a co-accused's disclosure statement and sale at a low price did not prove knowledge (paras 12, 23). The appellant was acquitted (para 25). The judgment text and our index record no S.C.R. or INSC citation, so it is cited by date.

Hiralal Babulal Soni & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 708 (2025 INSC 266) — 25 February 2025. B. R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. V. Viswanathan JJ. set aside the conviction of a jeweller, Nandkumar Babulal Soni, under Sections 120B and 411 IPC relating to gold bars bought with demand drafts drawn on fraudulently credited funds. The Court restated that the prosecution must prove possession by the accused, prior possession by someone else, and the accused's knowledge that the property was stolen (para 32). Even if the accused had bought the gold with the drafts, the prosecution still had to prove he knew or had reason to believe the drafts were fraudulently obtained (para 35). Because the seized gold was not proved to be the gold linked to the fraud, it was returned to him (paras 38-39). The case applied the IPC.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed". On a reading of that provision, receiving or dealing before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 411 to 414 IPC. Procedure for matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act. On a reading of that Article, receiving property obtained by cheating before 1 July 2024 cannot be punished under Section 317, because Section 410 IPC did not make that property stolen property. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 411 IPC? Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 411 IPC. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen, is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both. The definition of stolen property formerly in Section 410 IPC is now Section 317(1).

What is the main change in the stolen property provisions under the BNS? Section 317(1) BNS adds 'cheating' to the ways in which property becomes stolen property. Section 410 IPC covered property transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, and property criminally misappropriated or subject to criminal breach of trust. Section 317(1) covers all of these and also property whose possession has been transferred by cheating.

Is receiving stolen property bailable under the BNS? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists every offence in Section 317(2) to (5) BNS as cognizable and non-bailable. Sections 317(2) and 317(5) are triable by any Magistrate; Sections 317(3) and 317(4) by the Court of Session. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 411 to 414 IPC the same way.

Can a case of receiving stolen property be compromised? Yes, for two of the offences. Under Section 359(1) BNSS, dishonestly receiving stolen property (Section 317(2)) and assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property (Section 317(5)) may be compounded by the owner of the property stolen, without the court's permission. Section 320(1) CrPC listed Sections 411 and 414 IPC the same way. Sections 317(3) and 317(4) are not compoundable.

What must the prosecution prove for receiving stolen property? In Hiralal Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 266), the Supreme Court restated that the prosecution must prove that the stolen property was in the accused's possession, that someone else possessed it before, and that the accused knew it was stolen. In Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (7 September 2022), it held that negligence, or a failure to make enough inquiries, is not enough. Section 317(2) BNS repeats the words of Section 411 IPC.

Can a receiving-stolen-property case be tried summarily? Yes, where the value is small. Section 283(1) BNSS requires a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class to try Sections 317(2) and 317(5) summarily where the value does not exceed twenty thousand rupees. Section 260 CrPC allowed summary trial of Sections 411 and 414 IPC only up to two thousand rupees. Under Section 283(3), the Magistrate must switch to a regular trial if a summary trial appears undesirable.

Which law applies to stolen property received before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS lets proceedings for an offence under the IPC be instituted or continued as if the Code had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text receiving before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 411 to 414 IPC. On a reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, receiving property obtained by cheating before that date cannot be punished under Section 317, because Section 410 IPC did not treat such property as stolen property.

Related

• Theft: IPC 378-382 vs BNS 303-307
• Robbery and dacoity: IPC 392-395 vs BNS 309-310
• Criminal breach of trust: IPC 405-409 vs BNS 316
• Cheating: IPC 415-420 vs BNS 318
• Summary trial threshold — BNSS 283 vs CrPC 260
• IPC to BNS master table
• Section 260 CrPC vs Section 283 BNSS — Summary Trials (CrPC 260-265)

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 317, 318(1) and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 410 to 414 with the amendment footnotes.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 35(1)(e), 129, 201, 283, 359, 395, 479, 499 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 317(2) to (5) and 318(2) BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 181(5), 260 and 320, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 411 to 414 IPC.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Section 119(1), Illustration (a); Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114, Illustration (a).
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra (S_2001_5_672_694_EN.md); Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022_7_493_504_EN.md); Hiralal Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra (2025_2_708_726_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.