Theft
Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
(2) Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.
Section 303, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 378 Theft Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theft. | Rigorous imprisonment for not be less than 1 year but which may extend to 5 years, and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Where value of property is less than 5,000 rupees. | Upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-3.pdf 2019-12-18. Crl A 1920/2019. Nazeer/Khanna. DATE-CHECK flagged 2019-07-22 HC / 2019-02-08 cognizance / 2018-11-15 FIR dates (false positive); digital signature 2019.12.18; body is the named reportable. Excavated sand is movable property capable of theft under IPC 378/379; MMDR s.21 and IPC 379 are different offences, so MMDR s.22 does not bar 379 prosecution (Sanjay followed). Map ipc 379 only; do not pad MMDR or CrPC 482 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 379 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8672). The mineral-theft / movable-property holding carries to BNS 303.
-
Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited
Decided under Indian Penal Code 378, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-18.pdf 2019-05-09. Crl.A. 875/2019 (with 876-877/2019). R. Banumathi J. REPORTABLE. DATE-CHECK false positive (PDB death 03.07.2004 / Will 18.04.1999 / probate 19.07.2004 in the facts); body is the named theft-of-documents reportable. Isolates IPC 378: theft requires dishonest moving of movable property; information or photocopies of documents whose originals remain with the complainant are not ‘movable property’ stolen; temporary removal to photocopy is not theft (Pyare Lal Bhargava). Complaint qua documents 1–28 (originals still in custody) quashed; missing-original documents 29–54 can proceed. Carry bns 303 successor (mapping.csv near-identical 0.9504). Do not pad ipc 380/403/411 (already filled).
On this section: BNS 303 (theft) succeeds IPC 378: photocopying documents whose originals remain with the owner is not theft of movable property (Birla Corporation).
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 378, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Definition of theft as dishonest taking of movable property out of possession of person without consent; applied to minerals stolen from government land
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 378, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Definition of theft and punishment; applied to unauthorized removal of sand and minerals from government land; ingredients found distinct from MMDR violations
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Offence of theft - applied to convict appellant in multiple cases for stealing property
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.
On this section: Offence of theft - cited as the primary offence in the conviction cases in this matter
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.
On this section: Offence of theft - applied in all four crimes under appeal (CC 158/2004, 1039/2003, 390/2004, 1168/2006)
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, the Supreme Court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided the court applies judicial discretion based on the nature of offences and the relevant fact situation, considering factors such as the date of commission of offences, the quantum of sentences imposed, and the overall circumstances. However, such discretion is limited to substantive sentences; fine sentences and sentences in default of payment of fines shall continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Punishment for theft; the appellant was convicted under this section in multiple cases.
-
Rishipal vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC constitutes pure abuse of process of law and warrants quashing of the complaint case, as the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish any criminal offence - at most they disclose negligence or dereliction of official duty, not criminal conspiracy or cheating. The power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings must be exercised when a trained judicial mind concludes that continuation would lead to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, even though such exercise is an exception rather than the rule. Courts must actively prevent vexatious complaints filed by frustrated litigants seeking to misuse criminal law as a tool to settle civil disputes and to harass innocent third parties.
On this section: Punishment for theft. Charged in relation to theft of cheque book from handbag.
-
Union of India vs G. Annadurai
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an employer has made multiple genuine and verifiable attempts to serve notices and provide opportunity to defend oneself through prescribed channels (registered post, newspaper publication, etc.) in departmental proceedings, and an employee consistently fails to respond or appear despite being a member of a disciplined force with duty to remain responsive, the employer's disciplinary action cannot be struck down on grounds of breach of natural justice merely because the employee alleges non-receipt or claims ignorance of proceedings. The standards of procedural fairness are satisfied when reasonable efforts to communicate have been made and documented, regardless of whether the employee actually received or acted upon the notices.
On this section: Criminal charge under which FIR was originally registered against the respondent for alleged theft, triggering the events leading to desertion
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Charge of theft for stealing government property/resources related to mining
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Punishment for theft. Referenced in context of separate theft charge for the motorcycle used in kidnapping.
-
Uday Ram vs State (nct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a delay in registration of FIR is satisfactorily explained by extraordinary circumstances such as communal riots, police inaction despite complaints, and subsequent direction by an inquiry committee, such delay does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case. Conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence (including affidavits before official committees, witness testimony, documentary evidence like invoices and commercial records, civil court decrees, and evidence of long-term illegal occupation) even in the absence of direct ocular testimony to the crime. However, in sentencing, the Court has discretion to show leniency based on compelling personal circumstances such as advanced age, when the fundamental conviction is sustainable.
On this section: Theft - Primary conviction imposed; appellants convicted for looting crockery goods from the shops during riots
-
Inspector of Police C2 Periyapalayam Ps Cr.no.296/2017 U/sec.379 vs Govindaraj and 2 OTHERS
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal case remains pending at the warrant stage for an extended period (eight years) without execution despite best efforts, and the passage of time renders a meaningful trial unlikely and impinges upon the accused's right to speedy trial, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power to quash the case as no useful purpose would be served by continuation of prosecution.
On this section: Alleged offence of theft in connection with illegal sand transportation
-
Gagandeep Singh (Now Deceased) Through His LRS vs Parminder Kaur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove two essential co-existing elements: (1) that the prosecution was initiated without any reasonable and probable cause, and (2) that the prosecution terminated favorably to the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish both elements. Mere acquittal does not constitute malicious prosecution. The plaintiff must affirmatively prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malicious intent or oblique motive. The onus shifts to the defendant only after the plaintiff adduces evidence demonstrating malice. A civil court must conduct an independent enquiry, and grounds of acquittal alone cannot constitute the sole reason for granting a decree in malicious prosecution. The distinction must be drawn between failed prosecution and malicious prosecution.
On this section: Theft - the criminal charge under which FIR was registered against the plaintiff
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 379, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Theft charges in multiple related cases
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 303
What have the courts held on Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (18 Dec 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 379, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 379 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8672). The mineral-theft / movable-property holding carries to BNS 303. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
Is Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 2 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 303, section 303 BNS, section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 303(2) and bns 303 2 in hindi bailable or non bailable. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (18 Dec 2019).
What should I read with Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 378 (Theft), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called punishment for theft, and cited as BNS 303, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
- 316. Criminal breach of trust856 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.