Dishonest misappropriation of property
Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with dishonest misappropriation of property. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine.
Illustrations.
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith believing at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) 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. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A and B, being, joint owners of a horse. A takes the horse out of B’s possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 1.—A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.
Illustration.
A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z, bearing a blank endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security for a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. A has committed an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.—A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.
What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real owner cannot be found.
Illustrations.
(a) A finds a rupee on the high road, not knowing to whom the rupee belongs, A picks up the rupee. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A finds a letter on the road, containing a bank-note. From the direction and contents of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has lost the cheque. But the name of the person, who has drawn the cheque, appears. A knows that this person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A appropriates the cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
(d) A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse with the intention of restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence under this section.
(e) A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(f) A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
Section 314, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 403 Dishonest misappropriation of property Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dishonest misappropriation of movable property, or converting it to one's own use. | Imprisonment of not less than 6 months but which may extend to 2 years and fine. | 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.
-
U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2003-01-20 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 70/2003. Arun Kumar/M.B. Shah. Isolates IPC 403 ingredients: dishonest misappropriation requires dishonest intention plus conversion; independent contracts and a civil payment dispute do not make out 403. Cognizance quashed. Map ipc 403 + BNS 314 successor (near-identical 0.9939). Do not pad ipc 406/420.
On this section: Successor of IPC 403 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9939). The 403 ingredients holding carries to BNS 314.
-
Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint is filed many years after an alleged instantaneous offence (not a continuing offence), beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 CrPC, without plausible explanation for delay, by a litigant who has exhausted all civil and arbitral remedies and lost therein, and where earlier complaints on substantially identical facts have been dismissed on merits, and where material facts such as earlier dismissals have been suppressed, the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence or the availability in law to prosecute crimes after long periods. The court must protect innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous litigants who seek to weaponize criminal proceedings as a tool for vengeance after civil defeat.
On this section: Prescribes punishment for dishonest misappropriation of property. Maximum punishment is 2 years imprisonment or fine or both. Court noted the three-year limitation period applies to this offence.
-
Kotak Mahindra Bank LTD vs Hindustan National Glass & Ind. LTD
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wilful defaults of parties in meeting payment obligations to a bank under foreign exchange derivative transactions are covered by the RBI's Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters. The word 'lender' in the definition of wilful default in the Master Circular should be interpreted contextually to mean 'bank' and includes situations where a bank provides non-funded credit facilities such as derivative transactions. The Master Circular applies to all cases of wilful defaults where a party has the capacity to pay but willfully avoids payment of dues to the bank, whether such dues arise from traditional lending relationships or from other banking transactions such as derivative transactions or bank guarantees. The interpretation must be based on the purpose of the Master Circular (to disseminate credit information to caution banks from giving further finance to wilful defaulters), the mischief it seeks to remedy (preventing banks from being exploited by parties who have capacity to pay but willfully avoid payment), and the context in which the circular was issued (pursuant to Central Vigilance Commission instructions to report all cases of wilful defaults of Rs. 25 lakhs and above), rather than on a literal reading of the word 'lender.'
On this section: Sections 403 and 415 provide criminal liability for criminal breach of trust and cheating, which may be invoked against wilful defaulters depending on facts
-
K. L. Singh vs State of up
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have occurred in 1996, with the claim for damages being rejected in 2001 and communicated thereafter, cannot be initiated in 2011 (more than 9 years after rejection). The alleged offence of misappropriation/criminal breach of trust constitutes an instantaneous offence, not a continuing offence. The injury caused was complete on the date of rejection of the claim. Successive complaints on identical facts filed by frustrated litigants who have failed in civil and arbitration proceedings, after full consideration and dismissal of earlier complaints on merit, constitute abuse of process and are not maintainable under law. The courts must protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons through frivolous criminal complaints.
On this section: Dishonest misappropriation of property. Maximum punishment 2 years or fine. Applied to alleged unlawful possession of articles and documents. Court noted that complaint was time-barred.
-
Vishwantaha Tantri vs The State of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where loans are sanctioned and disbursed from the head office of a financial institution located in Delhi, and the offence involves criminal misappropriation and breach of trust in relation to those loans, the Delhi court has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 181(4) CrPC, notwithstanding that the preliminary acts of verification and application submission occurred in another state. The place of receipt and disbursement of the property (money) is the relevant factor for determining jurisdiction in cases of criminal misappropriation and breach of trust, not merely the place where the initial fraudulent acts were committed.
On this section: Offences charged in the FIR including criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy; cited in Magistrate's order directing FIR registration
-
Karmveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 403, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving allegations of misappropriation of funds by an employee entrusted with collection duties, the High Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR merely on the ground that the accused has filed a counter-complaint regarding a separate incident of theft. The serious nature of the allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and misappropriation warrants investigation, and the High Court will not interfere with the FIR unless there are compelling grounds to do so.
On this section: Dishonest misappropriation of property - applied to alleged misappropriation of loan instalments
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 314
What have the courts held on Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand (20 Jan 2003) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 403, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 403 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9939). The 403 ingredients holding carries to BNS 314. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2017.
Is Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-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 314 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 314, section 314 BNS, section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 314 316 and 318 and bns 314(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand (20 Jan 2003).
What should I read with Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 403 (Dishonest misappropriation of property), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 314, 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.