Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Stolen Property (S. 317 BNS)
Stolen property is a key concept in criminal law under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), primarily covered by Section 317. It refers to movable property dishonestly taken or converted without the consent of the rightful owner. The law not only punishes the act of theft itself but also provides remedies against possession, sale, or disposal of stolen property by others. This ensures that individuals who handle stolen goods knowingly or dishonestly are also held accountable, thereby discouraging trafficking and concealment of illicit property. Understanding the legal definition, elements, and consequences associated with stolen property is essential, as it helps differentiate between offences such as theft, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, and receiving stolen property, and forms a critical part of protecting property rights in India.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 317(1) | S. 410 | Word “cheating” is added. |
| S. 317(2) | S. 411 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| S. 317(3) | S. 412 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| S. 317(4) | S. 413 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| S. 317(5) | S. 414 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
What is Stolen Property?
Section 317(1) BNS
Stolen Property:
(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.
Section 317(1) BNS defines stolen property as any property whose possession has been transferred dishonestly or illegally through offences such as theft, extortion, robbery, cheating, or which has been criminally misappropriated or is the subject of a criminal breach of trust, regardless of whether these acts occurred within or outside India; however, if such property later comes into the lawful possession of a person entitled to it, such as the rightful owner or someone legally authorized, it ceases to be stolen property, because it is no longer in unauthorized or dishonest possession.
Examples of Stolen Property:
- A pickpockets ₹5,000 from B’s wallet. The money is stolen property from the moment it is taken.
- C threatens D with a weapon and forcibly takes D’s gold chain. The chain is stolen property as it was obtained through robbery.
- E threatens F with injury to compel F to give ₹10,000. The money handed over under threat is stolen property.
- G deceives H into handing over electronics by falsely claiming they are part of a prize. The electronics are stolen property, obtained through cheating.
- I is entrusted with ₹50,000 to deposit in the bank but uses it for personal expenses. This money is stolen property, as it was misappropriated (criminal breach of trust).
- J steals jewellery in another country and brings it into India. Even though taken abroad, the jewellery retains the status of stolen property.
- K steals a laptop from L but later returns it to L. Once returned, it ceases to be stolen property.
Dishonestly Receiving or Retaining Stolen Property:
S. 317(2) BNS:
(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.
The provision makes it an offence for a person to dishonestly receive, retain, or handle property that they know or have reason to believe is stolen.
Essential Ingredients of Section 317(2):
To establish the offence, the following elements must be proved:
- The property is stolen;
- The offender knew or reasonably believed that it is stolen; and
- The act of receiving or retaining the property was dishonest.
The law recognizes that even if the person did not steal the property themselves, handling stolen goods knowingly contributes to the chain of illegal transactions and encourages theft.
Punishment of Offence under Section 317(2):
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Nature of Offence under Section 317(2):
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate.
In Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State Of Maharashtra on 25 February, 2025 case, the Supreme Court held that in order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC (S. 317(2) BNS), it is the duty of the prosecution to prove (i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused; (ii) that some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and (iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
In Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 9 SCC 676, the Supreme Court held that to convict an accused under Section 411 IPC (dishonestly receiving/retaining stolen property), the prosecution must prove the accused had actual knowledge or reason to believe the items were stolen. Simply having possession or being negligent in verifying the source of goods is not enough.
Dishonestly Receiving Property Stolen in the Commission of a Dacoity:
S. 317(3) BNS:
(3) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 317(3) BNS deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining property known to be stolen during a dacoity. It applies to individuals who receive such property, knowing or having reason to believe it was stolen in a, dacoity, or obtained from a dacoit gang.
The provision means that any person who dishonestly receives or keeps property, knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen during a dacoity (a robbery committed by five or more persons), commits an offence; it also applies to someone who receives property from a person whom they know or suspect to be a member of a gang of dacoits, if they believe the property is stolen. In essence, even if a person did not participate in the dacoity itself, they can still be punished for handling such stolen property if they acted dishonestly and were aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of its illegal origin.
Punishment for Offence under Section 317(3) BNS:
Imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence under Section 317(3) BNS:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable and triable by Court of Session.
In Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar V. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.1960 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6174 of 2012 case, the Supreme Court held that it is apparent from a plain reading of Section 412 IPC (S. 317(3) BNS), that a person receiving stolen goods, would be guilty of the offence under Section 412 IPC (S. 317(3) BNS), if it can further be shown, that the recipient of the goods knew (or had reason to believe), that the person offering the goods, belonged to a gang of dacoits.
In Sheo Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 535 case, the Supreme Court held that if the prosecution fails to prove the accused knew the property was stolen in a dacoity, but knew it was stolen, they should be convicted under Section 411 IPC (S. 317(2) BNS), not Section 412 IPC (S. 317(3) BNS).
Habitually Dealing in Stolen Property:
S. 317(4) BNS:
(4) Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 317(4) BNS deals with the habitual receiving or dealing in stolen property, knowing or believing it to be stolen. This provision means that any person who regularly (habitually) receives, buys, sells, or otherwise deals in property that they know or have reason to believe is stolen commits a serious offence. The key idea is repetition—this is not about a one-time act, but a pattern of dealing in stolen goods, showing that the person is engaged in it as a practice or business. Even if they did not steal the property themselves, their continued involvement in handling stolen items makes them criminally liable. Because of this ongoing and intentional conduct, the law prescribes strict punishment.
Punishment for Offence under Section 317(4) BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence under Section 317(4) BNS:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable and triable by Court of Session.
In Rajjan @ Karan Rathour v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal 1150 of 2015 case, the Allahabad High Court held that if the prosecution failed to prove that the accused is habitual offender under Section 413 IPC (S. 317(4) BNS). Hence the accused should be convicted under Section 411 IPC (S. 317(2) BNS), not Section 413 IPC (S. 317(4) BNS).
Assisting In Concealment of Stolen Property:
S. 317(5) BNS:
(5) Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe 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.
Section 317(5) BNS punishes voluntarily assisting in the concealment, disposal, or removal of stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe it is stolen.
This provision means that any person who intentionally helps to hide, sell, transfer, or get rid of property that they know or have reason to believe is stolen commits an offence. The assistance must be voluntary, meaning it is done knowingly and not by accident or under compulsion. Even if the person did not steal the property or keep it, simply helping someone else to conceal it or dispose of it (for example, hiding stolen goods, helping sell them, or destroying evidence) makes them criminally liable. The law focuses on the person’s awareness or reasonable suspicion that the property is stolen.
Punishment for Offence under Section 317(5) BNS:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Nature of Offence under Section 317(5) BNS:
The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate.
In Ajendra Nath v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 170 case, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under s. 414 Indian Penal Code (S. 317(5) BNS) that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. The circumstances of the recovery in the present case sufficiently prove that the appellant had assisted in the concealment of the stolen property and had thus committed the offence under s. 414 Indian Penal Code (S. 317(5) BNS).
Conclusion:
Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reflects the law’s strong stance against not only the direct handling of stolen property but also any form of assistance in concealing or disposing of it. By criminalizing such supportive acts, the provision ensures that individuals cannot escape liability by merely avoiding direct involvement in theft while still aiding offenders. It emphasizes the importance of honesty and accountability, targeting those who knowingly or negligently facilitate the circulation of stolen goods. Ultimately, this section plays a crucial role in discouraging the broader ecosystem that enables property-related crimes, thereby strengthening the overall framework of criminal justice.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here