Punishment for theft
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for theft. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Section 379, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 303 Theft Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 10
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together
- Crpc 1973 s. 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act s. 38 Certain persons not to be tried by the Gram Panchayat
- Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act s. 17
- Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council Act s. 37
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
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: Excavated sand is movable property capable of theft; IPC 379 is a distinct offence from MMDR s.21, so s.22 does not bar a 379 prosecution (Kanwar Pal Singh).
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
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: Punishment for theft; extends to 3 years imprisonment or fine or both; primary IPC charge used for mineral theft cases
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
-
Ashi Devi vs State (nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of persons for theft and criminal trespass committed during communal riots can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, when the circumstances are coherent, consistent, and conclusively establish guilt. The delay in registration of FIR caused by the riot situation and subsequent administrative inquiry processes is reasonably explained and does not, by itself, invalidate a conviction. In sentencing, the court may exercise discretion to reduce imprisonment for elderly appellants who have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, particularly where humanitarian considerations warrant such mitigation.
On this section: Theft - applied as the substantive conviction; appellant found guilty of looting goods from the crockery shops
-
Gagandeep Singh (Now Deceased) Through His LRS vs Parminder Kaur
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
-
Inspector of Police C2 Periyapalayam Ps Cr.no.296/2017 U/sec.379 vs Govindaraj and 2 OTHERS
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
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
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
-
Jagdish vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When no minimum punishment is prescribed under a statute for a criminal offence, the court possesses discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, particularly when considering factors such as prolonged trial duration, reformation potential, law-abiding conduct post-conviction, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court must balance deterrence with reformation opportunities.
On this section: Cited as the section under which the original FIR was registered for theft
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.
-
… Accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two (02) charges. First charge was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') and the second charge was under Section 379 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 25.03.2012 at about 12.00 noon, the accused killed his wife by name Punyavathi @ Eswaramma (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased), by cutting her throat with <sup>a</sup> knife and in the same process, he committed theft of right ear gold ornament and gold chain …
-
… (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.677 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur (hereinafter referred to, as the learned Sessions Judge') is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Vide Judgment, dated 27.10.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life …
Questions about Section 379
What have the courts held on Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code?
Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (18 Dec 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Excavated sand is movable property capable of theft; IPC 379 is a distinct offence from MMDR s.21, so s.22 does not bar a 379 prosecution (Kanwar Pal Singh). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 379, section 379 IPC, section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 379 in bns and ipc 379 b in hindi. 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 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
10 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 303 (Theft), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 379, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.