Stolen property
Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with stolen property. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
Section 317, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 410 Stolen property Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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.
Referred to by 6
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 243
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 246
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 283
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 243 Trial for more than one offence
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 246 What persons may be charged jointly
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 283 Power to try summarily
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 4 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowing that it was obtained by dacoity. | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Habitually dealing in stolen property. | Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | 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.
-
Rama Murthy @ Ramu @ Upendra vs State of Karnataka by Peena Police Sub Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 411, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
On purely circumstantial material in a double homicide, the Court set aside the murder and conspiracy convictions while holding that recovery of the stolen ornaments sustained only the offences of receiving and assisting in the concealment of stolen property; liability for dealing with stolen property is distinct from liability for the crime by which the property was stolen, and suspicion cannot substitute for proof.
On this section: It fixes the outer limit of the stolen-property offence now in Section 317: possession of property transferred by theft or robbery proves the receiving offence under this section, not the predicate theft, robbery or murder.
-
State of Rajasthan vs Kailash
Decided under Indian Penal Code 410, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Possession of photocopies of stolen documents does not constitute receiving or possessing 'stolen property' as defined under Section 410 I.P.C. Photocopies are distinct items from the original stolen property, and without intention to receive tangible moveable stolen property and without prior concert or conspiracy, individuals cannot be prosecuted under Sections 411 or 414 I.P.C. merely for possessing reproductions of stolen originals. Penal offences cannot be created or expanded through interpretative processes; such expansion requires explicit legislative action.
On this section: Definition of stolen property - Court analyzed that stolen property under this section refers to tangible moveable property that was actually stolen, not reproductions or photocopies thereof
-
Surjeet Kaur vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 411, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Distinguishing dishonestly receiving stolen property from receiving property known to have been taken in a dacoity, the Court held that knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were stolen must be proved against each accused separately; the presumption from recent possession under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could not be carried from a husband to his wife merely because the jewellery was recovered from the matrimonial home, so the wife was acquitted and the husband's conviction was brought down to the lesser receiving offence.
On this section: It shows how the knowledge element and the aggravated forms of receiving under Section 317 must be separated on the evidence, and how far a presumption from recovery may be drawn against a person who merely shares the premises.
-
Gooju @ Fozu, Ors. vs N.c.t. of Delhi, Ors.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 411, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Refusing to interfere with the framing of a charge of receiving stolen property, the Court held that a prima facie case suffices at that stage, and that recovery of the misappropriated gold from the goldsmith's workshop on a disclosure statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, coupled with the accused's failure to explain his possession, raised the presumption under Section 114 and attracted the burden under Section 106.
On this section: It applies the definition limb of this section, treating criminally misappropriated property as stolen property, and sets the evidentiary threshold at which a charge of dishonestly receiving it may be framed.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail from apprehending his arrest in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.247 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Rule, 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the …
-
… JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 14-05-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025 instituted under Sections 310(2) and 317(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita lodged on 21.01.2025 by the informant, Ramji Paswan. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that three boys reserved e-Rickshaw from the Jhajha station to Raghunath village for Rs.200/-. As the e-Rickshaw the place, two motorcycles parked there, they made the vehicle …
-
… JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 12-05-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. > 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 479 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 317(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. > 3. The learned APP, at the outset, submits that the offence for which the instant FIR has been instituted, carries punishment of less than seven years, the said submission of the learned APP is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. > 4. The …
Questions about Section 317
What have the courts held on Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Rama Murthy @ Ramu @ Upendra vs State of Karnataka by Peena Police Sub Inspector of Police (13 Jul 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 411, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: It fixes the outer limit of the stolen-property offence now in Section 317: possession of property transferred by theft or robbery proves the receiving offence under this section, not the predicate theft, robbery or murder. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2021.
Is Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 317 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 317 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 317, section 317 BNS, section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 317 hindi and bns 317(2). 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 Rama Murthy @ Ramu @ Upendra vs State of Karnataka by Peena Police Sub Inspector of Police (13 Jul 2021).
What should I read with Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 410 (Stolen property), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 317, 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.