Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master
Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be li The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 306, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 381 Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master or employer. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-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.
-
Anguri Devi vs The State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 381, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused cooperates with investigation and has joined the investigative process, and her role in the alleged criminal activity is not that of principal offender, pre-arrest bail should be granted with conditions that she furnishes bail bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and cooperates with the investigation and trial, as such conditions adequately safeguard the State's investigative interests while preventing arrest-related injustice.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust - one of the primary charges against the petitioner forming basis of FIR
-
Nazeema vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 381, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC to be established, the prosecution must prove either theft or extortion as a constituent element, and must also prove that the offender caused or attempted to cause hurt, death, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof in the course of committing the theft or extortion. When an accused is acquitted of the constituent offences (theft and administering poison/causing hurt), the derivative offence of robbery cannot be established against the same accused based on the same evidence, as the essential ingredients required for robbery are not proven. Logical consistency requires that if the foundational elements of an offence are not established, the derivative offence built upon those elements cannot be sustained.
On this section: Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. The trial court found insufficient evidence to prove this offence as the recovery was not made under Section 27 of Evidence Act through disclosure statement.
-
Shaik Diwan Ali vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 381, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed seeking to quash criminal proceedings, if prima facie case exists and the issues raised are factual in nature, the petition cannot be entertained at the admission stage. Such factual questions must be decided during trial, and the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings in such circumstances.
On this section: Offence of theft - the substantive charge against the accused in the underlying criminal case
-
Bhairo Sharma vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 381, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person implicated in a criminal case through disclosure statement of another accused has joined the investigation, is cooperating with the investigating agency, and the main accused has already been granted bail, bail should be granted on reasonable conditions such as personal bond and surety, as the risk of absconding is minimal and the connection to the alleged crime is tenuous.
On this section: Theft - the substantive offence for which FIR was registered and bail was sought
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 306
What have the courts held on Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Anguri Devi vs The State of Haryana (13 Mar 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 381, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Criminal breach of trust - one of the primary charges against the petitioner forming basis of FIR. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
Is Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 306 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 306 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 306, section 306 BNS, section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 306 in ipc and bns 306 is bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Anguri Devi vs The State of Haryana (13 Mar 2024).
What should I read with Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 381 (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 306, 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
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 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.