IPC 378→BNS 303(1)

IPC 378 to BNS 303(1): Theft

Section 378 IPC (1860) replaced by Section 303(1) BNS (2023)

View IPC Section 378 →View BNS Section 303(1) →

IPC 378 to BNS 303(1) at a Glance

Section 378 IPC (Theft) is now Section 303(1) BNS, in force from 1 July 2024. What changed is set out below.

What Changed From IPC 378 to BNS 303(1)?

Section 378 IPC corresponds to sub-section 1 of Section 303(1) BNS. The definition of theft, the five Explanations, and the sixteen statutory illustrations are reenacted in sub-section 1 of Section 303(1) BNS virtually unchanged. In Explanation 5, the phrase the consent mentioned in the definition is updated to the consent mentioned in this section. The substantive legal principles governing dishonest taking, severance of immovable property, moving, and consent remain identical across both statutes.

IPC 378 vs BNS 303(1): Comparison Table

AspectIPC 1860 (repealed)BNS 2023 (in force)
Section378303(1)
OffenceTheftSame
PunishmentNone under this sectionNone under this sub-section
FineNone under this sectionNone under this sub-section
BailNon-BailableSame
CognizanceNon-CognizableSame
CompoundableNon-CompoundableSame

IPC 378 and BNS 303(1): Bare Act Text Side by Side

IPC 1860 (repealed)

Section 378, IPC 1860

378. Theft.—Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. Illustrations (a) A cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z's possession without Z's consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft. 1. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 7, for “section 376D” (w.e.f. 21-4-2018). 2. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, s. 117 and the Sch., for “transportation for life” (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 95 (b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to follow it. Here, if A's intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z's possession without Z's consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z's dog has begun to follow A. (c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure. (d) A being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z's consent. A has committed theft. (e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z's possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z's possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust. (f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z's possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft. (g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property. (h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z's house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft. (i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z's hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, inasmuch as what he did was not done dishonestly. (j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z's possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly. (k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z's possession without Z's consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly. (l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z's possession without Z's consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefor committed theft. (m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a book without Z's express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z's implied consent to use Z's book. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft. (n) A asks charity from Z's wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z's wife is authorised to give away alms. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft. (o) A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has not authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft. (p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own property, takes that property out of B's possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.
BNS 2023 (in force)

Section 303(1), BNS 2023

(1) Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in this section may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. Illustrations. (a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft. (b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A. (c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure. (d) A being Z’s servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z’s consent. A has committed theft. (e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust. (f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft. (g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property. (h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft. (i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweler, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweler any debt for which the jeweler might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly. (j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. (k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly. (l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft. (m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft. (n) A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorised to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft. (o) A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft. (p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that property out of Z’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.

Ingredients: IPC 378 vs BNS 303(1)

Under IPC 378
  1. Dishonest intention to take the property
  2. The property must be movable property
  3. The property was in the possession of another person
  4. The property was taken out of that person's possession without their consent
  5. The accused moved the property in order to effect such taking
Under BNS 303(1)
  1. Dishonest intention to take movable property out of the possession of any person
  2. Absence of express or implied consent of the person in possession
  3. Moving of the property in order to effect such taking

What IPC 378 to BNS 303(1) Means for Pending Cases

For Section 378 IPC (now Section 303(1) BNS): under Section 303(1) BNS, the definition of theft governs all charges of theft framed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The classic requirements of dishonest intention, possession, moving, and absence of consent apply identically to investigations and trials, preserving established principles developed under Section 378 IPC.

FAQs: IPC 378 to BNS 303(1)

What changed between Section 378 IPC and Section 303(1) BNS?▼

The definition of theft, five Explanations, and sixteen illustrations are reenacted verbatim in sub-section 1 of Section 303 BNS, with the sole change being the substitution of section for definition in Explanation 5.

Where is Section 378 IPC located in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?▼

Section 378 IPC is codified as sub-section 1 of Section 303 BNS, in Chapter XVII, Of Offences Against Property, under the heading Of Theft.

Does Section 378 IPC or Section 303(1) BNS apply to an act done before 1 July 2024?▼

Section 378 IPC. Section 358 BNS repealed the IPC from 1 July 2024 but saves any liability already incurred under it, so an act done before that date is still dealt with under Section 378 IPC. Section 303(1) BNS governs acts done on or after 1 July 2024.

Disclaimer: This comparison is for informational purposes only. The new criminal laws came into effect on 1 July 2024. Consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·