Section 317 BNS: Stolen property

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 317 BNS at a Glance

Section 317 BNS deals with stolen property. It replaced Sections 410, 411, 412, 413 and 414 IPC on 1 July 2024.

Punishment

None of its own. Section 317(1) BNS is a definition provision and prescribes no punishment. Liability arises under the punishing sub-sections: Section 317(2) BNS, Section 317(3) BNS, Section 317(4) BNS, and Section 317(5) BNS.

IPC Equivalent

Section 410 →

Section 317 BNS Bare Act Text

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Source: Section 317, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 317 BNS in the IPC (Previous Law)

Section 317 BNS replaced Sections 410, 411, 412, 413 and 414 IPC from 1 July 2024.

Each sub-section below names its own source.

FAQs on Section 317 BNS

What does Section 317(1) BNS actually mean?▼

It defines what counts as stolen property under criminal law. The term covers property whose possession was transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, or cheating, as well as property that was criminally misappropriated or the subject of criminal breach of trust, whether within or outside India, until it returns to a person legally entitled to possess it.

Under Section 317(1) BNS, can a buyer be punished if they purchase stolen goods unknowingly?▼

If the buyer truly had no knowledge and no reason to believe the goods were stolen, criminal liability is harder to prove. The prosecution must show guilty knowledge or at least reasonable grounds for belief. Suspiciously low prices, lack of documents, or secretive dealings often become relevant evidence.

Does Section 317(1) BNS itself carry a jail term?▼

No, Section 317(1) BNS is a definition section. It does not prescribe a separate sentence on its own. Punishment comes under the specific offence provisions that apply to receiving, retaining, or dealing with the property.

Why is Section 317(1) BNS used in police cases?▼

It helps the police show that property found with an accused is still legally stolen property. That makes it easier to connect the property to the original offence and to people who helped move it. It is especially useful in recovery and tracing investigations.

Is buying a stolen item also an offence under Section 317(2) BNS?▼

Yes, if the buyer knew or had reason to believe that the item was stolen. Mere purchase is not enough by itself. The prosecution must show dishonest knowledge or suspicious circumstances that point to guilty intent.

Under Section 317(2) BNS, what if I did not know the goods were stolen?▼

Lack of knowledge is a strong defence. The court will look at the price paid, the source of the goods, the conduct of the accused, and whether the explanation sounds genuine. If you acted in good faith and had no reason to suspect theft, liability may not follow.

Can police arrest a person under Section 317(2) BNS?▼

Yes, this is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, so police can register a case and investigate. Because the maximum punishment is imprisonment up to three years, arrest is subject to the statutory procedural safeguards governing offences punishable up to seven years.

Under Section 317(2) BNS, what is the difference between theft and receiving stolen property?▼

The thief commits the original taking. Section 317(2) BNS applies to a different person who later receives or keeps the stolen property dishonestly. So, the law punishes the chain that helps stolen property move and be used.

Under Section 317(3) BNS, is it enough that I bought goods later found to be taken in a dacoity?▼

Not by itself. The prosecution must prove that you knew, or had reason to believe, that possession of the goods was transferred by dacoity, or that you received stolen property from someone you knew or had reason to believe belonged to a gang of dacoits. If you were a genuine buyer without such knowledge, this section does not apply.

How is Section 317(3) BNS different from receiving stolen property in general?▼

This section is narrower and much stricter. It applies only when the stolen property was transferred by the commission of dacoity, or when stolen property is dishonestly received from a person known or believed to belong or have belonged to a gang of dacoits.

Can a shopkeeper or trader be charged under Section 317(3) BNS?▼

Yes, if the facts show dishonest receipt or retention of property known or believed to have been transferred by dacoity, or dishonest receipt of stolen property from a member of a gang of dacoits. Mere business dealing without that knowledge is not enough.

Is the offence under Section 317(3) BNS bailable?▼

No, it is generally treated as non-bailable. Because the punishment can extend up to life imprisonment, courts and police treat it as a serious offence.

Under Section 317(4) BNS, what does it mean to be habitually dealing in stolen property?▼

It means the person is not involved just once, but repeatedly engages in buying, receiving, keeping, or selling stolen goods. The prosecution must show a pattern of conduct. A single isolated incident usually does not fit this section.

Under Section 317(4) BNS, do police need to prove that I knew the goods were stolen?▼

Yes, knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen is essential. Direct proof is not always necessary, and the court can rely on surrounding facts and conduct. But mere possession without suspicious circumstances is not enough.

Is the offence under Section 317(4) BNS bailable?▼

No, this offence is non-bailable. It is also cognizable, so police can register a case and investigate without prior court permission. The seriousness of the offence reflects the repeated nature of the conduct.

How is Section 317(4) BNS different from ordinary receiving stolen property?▼

Ordinary receiving stolen property is a lesser offence and usually involves a single transaction. Section 317(4) BNS applies when the dealing is habitual, which makes it much more serious. The law treats repeated handling of stolen goods as supporting theft on a larger scale.

Is merely keeping stolen property enough for the offence under Section 317(5) BNS?▼

Not by itself. The prosecution must also show that the person knew, or had reason to believe, that the property was stolen. Innocent possession without that knowledge does not attract this section.

Can a shopkeeper or transporter be booked under Section 317(5) BNS?▼

Yes, if they knowingly help conceal, carry, store, or dispose of stolen goods. A person who deals with such property in the normal course of business without knowledge is not liable under this provision.

What is the maximum punishment under Section 317(5) BNS?▼

The maximum punishment is imprisonment of either description for 3 years, or fine, or both. The court will look at the facts, the role played, and whether the accused acted knowingly.

Is the offence under Section 317(5) BNS bailable?▼

No. This is a non-bailable offence, so bail is not a matter of right. The accused must apply to the court, which may grant bail subject to conditions depending on the facts of the case.

Section 317 BNS: Sub-sections Explained

Section 317(1) BNS: Stolen property

▶

Bare Act Text

(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.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 317(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines what counts as stolen property for criminal law purposes. Property is designated as stolen property when its possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, or cheating, or when it has been criminally misappropriated or been the subject of criminal breach of trust. This applies whether the transfer, misappropriation, or breach of trust took place within India or outside India.

Property continues to be stolen property until it subsequently comes into the possession of a person who is legally entitled to possess it. Once it returns to the lawful possessor, it ceases to be stolen property. This definition supports the offences in the remaining sub-sections of Section 317 BNS, which punish dishonestly receiving, retaining, habitually dealing in, or assisting in concealing or disposing of such property.

In practice, this provision is often used in cases involving gold, vehicles, phones, cash, and other property obtained through these offences. It helps police and courts trace the property beyond the original offender across the chain of possession.

Key Ingredients

  • Transfer of possession by theft, extortion, robbery, or cheating under Section 317(1) BNS
  • Criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust committed in respect of the property, whether within or without India
  • Cessation of stolen status upon subsequent possession by a person legally entitled to possess it

Punishment

🔒 None of its own. Section 317(1) BNS is a definition provision and prescribes no punishment. Liability arises under the punishing sub-sections: Section 317(2) BNS, Section 317(3) BNS, Section 317(4) BNS, and Section 317(5) BNS.

💰 None of its own. Fines are prescribed under the punishing sub-sections from Section 317(2) BNS to Section 317(5) BNS.

Section 317(1) BNS defines stolen property and creates no offence of its own. Classification and punishment follow the specific offence charged under Sections 317(2) to 317(5) BNS.

Real-World Example

Gopal broke into a warehouse in Nagpur and stole ten sacks of grain. Gopal later transferred the sacks to Mohan. Because possession of the grain was transferred by theft, the sacks are designated as stolen property under Section 317(1) BNS. The grain retains that character until it subsequently comes into the possession of the lawful owner entitled to its possession. Section 317(1) BNS defines the status of the property, while liability for dishonestly receiving or retaining it is determined under Section 317(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • Possession of the property was not transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, or cheating, nor was the property criminally misappropriated or the subject of criminal breach of trust
  • The property subsequently came into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, thereby ceasing to be stolen property

Previous Law

IPC 410 → Section 317(1) BNS

Section 410 IPC corresponds to Section 317(1) BNS. Section 317(1) BNS widens the definition by adding cheating, so that property obtained by cheating is now designated as stolen property. Under Section 410 IPC, only property transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust was included. The rules that the act may occur within or without India and that property ceases to be stolen upon returning to a person legally entitled to possess it are retained.

Section 317(2) BNS: Dishonestly receiving stolen property

▶

Bare Act Text

(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.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with receiving or retaining stolen property dishonestly, knowing or having reason to believe that the property is stolen. It does not punish the original theft itself. Instead, it targets the person who helps keep stolen goods in circulation.

This can include buying, taking possession of, hiding, or using such property. The law applies where the accused had knowledge, or at least strong reason to believe, that the property was stolen at the time of receiving or keeping it. That mental element is very important.

If a person buys a mobile phone, vehicle, jewellery, or any other item at an unusually low price from a doubtful source, the police may examine whether the person knew the goods were stolen. In practice, this section is used in cases involving recovered stolen articles, black market goods, and property moved through multiple hands after theft. It helps police and courts trace the chain of possession and prevent people from profiting from stolen property.

Key Ingredients

  • Stolen property within the meaning of Section 317(1) BNS
  • Dishonest reception or retention of that property by the accused
  • Knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen property
  • Punishment under Section 317(2) BNS of imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

💰 The court may impose fine alone, or fine in combination with imprisonment.

Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property carries imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both.

Real-World Example

Sunil bought a motorcycle from a stranger at midnight for five thousand rupees without registration papers or keys. The seller informed Sunil that the vehicle had been taken from an apartment parking lot earlier that day. Sunil hid the motorcycle in his garage and refused to return it to the police upon inquiry. Sunil dishonestly received and retained the vehicle, having reason to believe that it was stolen property. Sunil is punishable under Section 317(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The property was not stolen property within the statutory definition
  • The accused did not receive or retain the property
  • The accused acted without dishonest intention and had no knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen
  • The property had already returned to the possession of a person legally entitled to possess it

Previous Law

IPC 411 → Section 317(2) BNS

Section 411 IPC corresponds to Section 317(2) BNS. Section 317(2) BNS reproduces the text of the offence and its punishment without change, providing imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both. However, because Section 317(1) BNS adds cheating to the definition of stolen property, receiving property obtained by cheating now falls within Section 317(2) BNS, whereas under Section 411 IPC property obtained by cheating was not stolen property.

Section 317(3) BNS: Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity

▶

Bare Act Text

(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.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with a severe form of receiving stolen property connected with dacoity. It applies when a person dishonestly receives or retains stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that its possession was transferred by the commission of dacoity. It also applies when a person dishonestly receives stolen property from someone whom they know or have reason to believe belongs or belonged to a gang of dacoits. The law treats this much more seriously than ordinary receiving of stolen property because dacoity is committed by a group of five or more persons.

The prosecution must show dishonest receipt or retention along with the required knowledge or reason to believe regarding the dacoity or the gang of dacoits. In practice, this section is used where the receiver may not have taken part in the dacoity itself, but helps absorb or conceal looted goods. It targets the support network and market for property linked to dacoits.

Key Ingredients

  • Dishonest reception or retention of stolen property with knowledge or reason to believe that its possession was transferred by dacoity
  • In the alternative, dishonest reception of stolen property from a person known or believed to belong or have belonged to a gang of dacoits
  • Punishment under Section 317(3) BNS of imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, and liability to fine

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Court of Session ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine. The statute does not prescribe a mandatory fine or fix a maximum amount.

Dishonestly receiving property stolen in a dacoity or receiving stolen property from a gang of dacoits carries imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and liability to fine.

Real-World Example

Five armed men conjointly committed dacoity at a farmhouse near Pune and looted fifty gold ornaments. Later that evening, the leader of the gang delivered twenty of the looted gold ornaments to Vikram at a secluded shed. Vikram accepted and concealed the ornaments, knowing that the property had been transferred through the armed dacoity earlier that day. Vikram dishonestly received and retained stolen property, knowing it to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity. Vikram is punishable under Section 317(3) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The property was not stolen property within the statutory definition
  • The accused did not dishonestly receive or retain the property
  • The accused lacked knowledge or reason to believe that the property was transferred by dacoity, and did not receive it from any person known or believed to belong to a gang of dacoits
  • The property had already come into the possession of a person legally entitled to possess it

Previous Law

IPC 412 → Section 317(3) BNS

Section 412 IPC corresponds to Section 317(3) BNS. Section 317(3) BNS reproduces the text and penalties of Section 412 IPC without substantive change, retaining imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and liability to fine. The provision forms the third sub-section of consolidated Section 317(3) BNS. Through the expanded definition of stolen property in Section 317(1) BNS, the second limb of Section 317(3) BNS now also covers property obtained by cheating when received from a person belonging to a gang of dacoits.

Section 317(4) BNS: Habitually dealing in stolen property

▶

Bare Act Text

(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.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with a person who habitually deals in stolen property. The law does not punish a one-off mistake here. It targets those who repeatedly buy, receive, keep, sell, or otherwise deal with stolen goods as a regular practice, while knowing or having reason to believe that the goods are stolen.

This section is aimed at people who help create a market for stolen property. That may include receivers, middlemen, shopkeepers, scrap dealers, or others who make dealing in stolen goods part of their business or routine conduct. In practice, this provision is used to go after organised or repeated handling of stolen articles, not casual possession in an isolated case.

Its practical significance is high because repeated dealing in stolen property makes theft easier and more profitable. If the prosecution can show a pattern of such conduct, the law treats the offence far more seriously than ordinary receiving of stolen property.

Key Ingredients

  • Stolen property within the meaning of Section 317(1) BNS
  • Habitual receiving of or dealing in such property by the accused
  • Knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen property
  • Punishment under Section 317(4) BNS of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and liability to fine

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Court of Session ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine. The statute does not prescribe a mandatory fine or fix a maximum amount.

Habitually receiving or dealing in stolen property carries imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and liability to fine.

Real-World Example

Over a period of four months in Jodhpur, Mohan regularly purchased bicycles and power tools from different thieves without purchase receipts or serial numbers, paying less than a third of their market value. Mohan maintained an unlicensed warehouse where he systematically altered frame markings and resold the stolen goods to local retailers. Mohan habitually received and dealt in property knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen. Mohan is punishable under Section 317(4) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The property was not stolen property within the statutory definition
  • The transaction was an isolated act rather than habitual receiving or dealing in property
  • The accused acted without knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen
  • The property had already returned to the possession of a person legally entitled to possess it

Previous Law

IPC 413 → Section 317(4) BNS

Section 413 IPC corresponds to Section 317(4) BNS. Section 317(4) BNS reproduces the text and penalties of Section 413 IPC without substantive change, maintaining imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and liability to fine. The provision forms the fourth sub-section of consolidated Section 317(4) BNS. Because Section 317(1) BNS adds cheating to the definition of stolen property, habitual dealing in property obtained by cheating is now covered under Section 317(4) BNS.

Section 317(5) BNS: Assisting in concealment of stolen property

▶

Bare Act Text

(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.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with helping to hide, keep, or dispose of property that a person knows, or has reason to believe, is stolen. The law does not punish the original theft here. It targets the person who comes in later and assists the offender by making the stolen property harder to trace or recover.

This section can apply to a wide range of conduct. For example, it may cover someone who stores stolen goods, transports them, sells them, or helps to conceal them. The key point is knowledge. The prosecution must show that the person knew, or had reason to believe, that the property was stolen.

In practice, this section is often used against receivers, middlemen, and others who help move stolen goods through informal or illegal channels.

Key Ingredients

  • Stolen property within the meaning of Section 317(1) BNS
  • Voluntary assistance by the accused in concealing, disposing of, or making away with the property
  • Knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen property
  • Punishment under Section 317(5) BNS of imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both

Punishment

Non-Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

💰 The court may impose fine alone, or fine in addition to imprisonment.

Voluntarily assisting in concealing, disposing of, or making away with stolen property carries imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.

Real-World Example

Ravi arrived at the warehouse of his friend Kishore carrying three bags of copper cables that had been stolen from a railway freight yard. Ravi told Kishore that the police were searching for the goods. Kishore helped Ravi load the bags into a hidden basement chamber and subsequently arranged for a driver to transport the cables to another town. Kishore voluntarily assisted in concealing and disposing of property which he had reason to believe was stolen property. Kishore is punishable under Section 317(5) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The property was not stolen property within the statutory definition
  • The accused did not voluntarily assist in concealing, disposing of, or making away with the property
  • The accused had no knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen
  • The property had already returned to the possession of a person legally entitled to possess it

Previous Law

IPC 414 → Section 317(5) BNS

Section 414 IPC corresponds to Section 317(5) BNS. Section 317(5) BNS reproduces the text and punishment of Section 414 IPC without substantive change, providing imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both. The provision forms the fifth sub-section of consolidated Section 317(5) BNS. Because Section 317(1) BNS adds cheating to the definition of stolen property, assisting in concealing or disposing of property obtained by cheating now falls within Section 317(5) BNS.

Have questions about Section 317 BNS?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, punishment details, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·