Dishonestly receiving stolen property
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with dishonestly receiving stolen property. 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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.
Section 411, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 317 Stolen property Close, with changes 83%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 14
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 223 What persons may be charged jointly
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 223 What persons may be charged jointly
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 223 What persons may be charged jointly
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 260 Power to try summarily
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 223 What persons may be charged jointly
- Crpc 1973 s. 260 Power to try summarily
and 2 more
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.
-
Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-12.pdf 2022-09-07. Crl A 1503/2022. Hrishikesh Roy/K.M. Joseph/Aniruddha Bose. DATE-CHECK flagged a cache-date mismatch (false positive); the PDF is the named 7 Sep 2022 reportable isolating IPC 411: dishonest receipt of stolen property requires knowledge or reason to believe the goods are stolen; recovery plus sale at cheaper rates, or a co-accused disclosure, is not enough. Do not successor-map ipc 411 → bns 317 (mapping.csv close 0.8265). Do not pad ipc 406.
On this section: IPC 411 needs proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen; cheaper sale or a co-accused disclosure is not enough (Shiv Kumar).
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving property stolen in commission of dacoity - applied to accused involved in body disposal
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - charged against specific accused for possession of stolen articles
-
Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State(nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Possession of stolen ornaments of a deceased person recovered from an accused, even if unexplained and even though the accused was present in the house prior to the crime, does not conclusively prove the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC unless there is specific evidence establishing that the theft and murder occurred as part of the same transaction. The presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act, 1872 applies only to presumption of theft or receipt of stolen property, not to murder. A gap in time between when the accused was last seen leaving the premises and when the crime was discovered creates a significant margin during which the crime could have been committed by someone other than the accused. Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the offence.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property; conviction set aside by High Court and substituted with Section 392
-
Rakesh Anand vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Applied for receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen in relation to articles from deceased.
-
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: Dishonestly receiving stolen property. Charged against appellant for alleged receipt of stolen cheques.
-
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: Offence cited in charges against accused
-
Sukhraj Singh vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450, and 342 IPC is legally sustainable as it is supported by credible prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and investigative findings; the separate acquittal or relief granted to a co-offender in a different proceeding does not invalidate the conviction of another accused if the evidence against that accused is independently reliable and credible; sentencing for criminal offences must balance the need for just punishment with proportionality between the offence and penalty, considering the impact on society and the victim, and mere passage of time since the incident without exceptional circumstances does not warrant further sentence reduction beyond what the trial and appellate courts have determined.
On this section: False charges used against Sukhraj Singh; the trial court found the FIR against him was false, establishing the credibility of the robbery allegation against Sanjiv Kumar
-
State of Rajasthan vs Gulab Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Medical evidence of multiple ante-mortem injuries established by post-mortem examination report and doctor's testimony cannot be disregarded or contradicted by a prosecutor's weak agreement. Alteration of murder conviction to attempt to murder conviction by an appellate court must be grounded in substantive analysis of evidence, not arbitrary characterization of injuries as 'mechanical' or 'non-mechanical'. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when medical evidence establishes ante-mortem injuries and their causal connection to death.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - applied to Shambu Singh
-
Shailendra Pratap vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. A reasonable view taken by a trial court while recording acquittal cannot be reversed by a higher court merely because a different or stricter view of the evidence is possible.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - charge in the background case that created rivalry between parties
-
State of Rajasthan vs Kailash
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: Receiving stolen property - Court held that this section requires the accused to have received tangible stolen moveable property with knowledge that it was stolen, which was not established for respondents with only photocopies
-
Diya Chandrayudu vs State of A.p
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision case is filed against concurrent findings of two courts below (trial court and appellate court), the High Court will not interfere unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In cases involving recovery of stolen property with consistent witness testimony and proper identification by the victims, the conviction under Section 411 IPC is sustainable even if the test identification parade is conducted by a non-specialized officer like an Assistant Panchayat Secretary, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The credibility of witnesses, particularly mediators and investigating officers, should be assessed based on their testimony, demeanor, and whether they have any motive to falsely support the prosecution.
On this section: Dishonest receiving of stolen property - the primary charge against the accused. The court applied this section to convict the accused for receiving and possessing stolen bicycles.
-
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 petitioner was convicted for receiving stolen property; the court noted that no minimum punishment is prescribed under this section, which gave the court discretion to reduce the sentence
-
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: Dishonestly receiving stolen property charges
-
Mohd Abdul Gaffer @ Mohd Gaffer vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person is convicted in two or more separate cases for different transactions with different crime numbers and decided by different judgments, the normal principle is that sentences shall run consecutively unless the court specifically directs otherwise under Section 427 CrPC. Such discretionary direction requires sound judicial reasoning based on the nature of offence and facts of the case. A habitual offender with multiple convictions is not entitled to concurrent sentencing as a matter of right. The High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC will not interfere with well-considered judgments of lower courts based on sound appreciation of facts and law unless there is compelling reason or illegality.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen - Applied in one of the petitioner's other cases (Cr.No.554 of 2016) resulting in 2 years imprisonment.
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - multiple FIRs against petitioner
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.
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they …
-
… He was a party to the conspiracy. Thus, prosecution fully established against him the commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 436 and 120B of the IPC. High Court - 13. Vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2012, the High Court upheld convictions of A3 & A9. However, conviction of A3 under Section 411 Indian Penal Code ('IPC) was set aside. The conviction of A5 and A6 was set aside on all counts. - Accused No. 3: Out of the ten circumstances alleged against A3, his arrest from New Delhi Railway Station and recovery of explosives from his residence stands proved. Issue of Sentence: [ Para 272 ] his …
Questions about Section 411
What have the courts held on Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code?
Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (07 Sep 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IPC 411 needs proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen; cheaper sale or a co-accused disclosure is not enough (Shiv Kumar). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 411 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 411, section 411 IPC, section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 411 in bns and ipc 411 punishment. 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 Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (07 Sep 2022).
What should I read with Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
14 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 317 (Stolen property), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 411, 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.