Assisting in concealment of stolen property
Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with assisting in concealment of stolen property. 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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.
Of cheating
Section 414, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 317 Stolen property Close, with changes 82%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 11
- 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
- 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
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.
-
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 receiving or retaining stolen property - applied to convict appellant in theft cases
-
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 receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen - cited as the secondary offence in multiple cases
-
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 receiving or retaining stolen property - applied in three of the four cases under appeal (CC 158/2004, 1039/2003, 390/2004)
-
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 receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen; used in conjunction with Section 379 in several convictions.
-
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: Assisting in concealment of stolen property - applied to Dhool Singh and Moti Singh
-
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: Possession of stolen property knowing it to be stolen - Charged as a lesser included offense
-
Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When circumstantial evidence establishes that the accused were in close spatial and temporal proximity to the deceased immediately before the death, and the dead body is recovered within a short span of time thereafter in the location where the accused were heading, and the accused fail to provide any reasonable explanation for their subsequent presence at a different location or for the disappearance of the deceased, such circumstances form a complete chain of evidence that is inconsistent with any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, thereby justifying conviction for kidnapping and murder despite the absence of direct evidence.
On this section: Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property - cited for FIR registered at Purnia
-
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: Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property
-
Raushan Kumar @ Chhotu vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In juvenile justice matters, while gravity of offence should not be the determining factor for bail, the paramount consideration must be the best interests and welfare of the juvenile in conflict with law. If the court finds, based on credible evidence such as a Social Investigation Report, that release would expose the juvenile to criminal associations and bad company leading to further offences and moral, physical, or psychological danger, the court may refuse bail even if the offence is not grave, prioritizing the juvenile's own protection and rehabilitation within a Child Care Institution.
On this section: Offence of receiving or retaining stolen property; charge against the juvenile for looted articles
-
Majarid Nadaf @ Majrid Nadaf vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Anticipatory bail may be granted in excise cases where the accused was not present at the spot of recovery and is implicated solely as the vehicle owner, provided they have no prior criminal history.
On this section: Assisting in concealment of stolen property.
-
Ashok vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR that prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, if the facts of the case attract the provisions of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police authorities must ensure compliance with those protective provisions.
On this section: Sections under which the FIR was registered; Section 414 relates to dishonestly receiving stolen property, Section 419 relates to cheating by personation, Section 193 relates to punishment for false evidence, Section 120-B relates to criminal conspiracy
-
Saddam vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been granted protection under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. but fails to comply with it and does not appear in court after chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, no ground exists for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., as established by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar.
On this section: Charge of receiving or retaining stolen property; cited as one of the charges in the FIR
-
Saroj Singh vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged primarily on the basis of a co-accused's statement and possesses a fair antecedent record, bail may be granted with appropriate conditions including sureties, undertakings regarding court appearance, and safeguards against misuse of bail through involvement in similar offences.
On this section: Receiving stolen property - charge against petitioner
-
Mithilesh Kati& ANR. vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where the evidence against accused persons is weak and circumstantial, and particularly where the only evidence is their presence together at a location before the crime, bail should be granted with reasonable conditions and sureties to ensure court appearance, rather than continued detention. The court must balance the presumption of innocence against the need to ensure the accused's availability for trial.
On this section: Receiving or retaining stolen property knowing it to be stolen - additional charge to be verified by court below
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 appeals are preferred by A1 to A4 against their conviction and sentence under Sections 120B(1), 366, 376D, 394, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC']; and by A5 and A6 against their conviction and sentence under Section 212 read with Sections 34, 411 and 414 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that A1 to A4 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit abduction, rape and robbery. Accordingly, on 14.02.2015 at about 8 a.m., A1 to A4 reached Edapally Toll in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-40/F-2019 driven by A4, where PW1 and PW2 were waiting in anticipation of …
-
… The appeals are preferred by A1 to A4 against their conviction and sentence under Sections 120B(1), 366, 376D, 394, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC']; and by A5 and A6 against their conviction and sentence under Section 212 read with Sections 34, 411 and 414 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that A1 to A4 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit abduction, rape and robbery. Accordingly, on 14.02.2015 at about 8 a.m., A1 to A4 reached Edapally Toll in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-40/F-2019 driven by A4, where PW1 and PW2 were waiting in anticipation of …
Questions about Section 414
What have the courts held on Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code?
Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of receiving or retaining stolen property - applied to convict appellant in theft cases. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 414 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 414, section 414 IPC, section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 414 in bns and ipc 414 34 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
11 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 414 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 414, 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.