Section 303 defines and punishes theft. Sub-section (1) says a person commits theft when, intending to take movable property dishonestly out of another person’s possession without that person’s consent, he moves that property in order to such taking. Sub-section (2) sets the punishment: imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both; on a second or subsequent conviction, rigorous imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years, together with fine. A proviso provides for community service where the stolen property is worth less than ₹5,000 and the person is convicted for the first time, upon return of the value or restoration of the property. Section 303(1) carries over the definition in IPC Section 378, and Section 303(2) replaces IPC Section 379 with a longer, tiered punishment clause.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 303 has two sub-sections, and each traces to a different section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sub-section (2) is marked Substantively changed:
| BNS 303 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 303(1) | Definition of theft | S.378 “Theft” | Exact |
| 303(2) | Punishment for theft | S.379 “Punishment for theft” | Substantively changed |
303(1) and IPC Section 378. The operative definition — “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft” — is worded identically. A word-by-word comparison of the two statutory texts (Section 378 of the IPC and Section 303(1) of the BNS) shows no difference in the operative definition and none in Explanations 1, 3 and 4. The differences are these, and all of them are drafting-level: (i) Explanation 2 reads “A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance” in the IPC, but “which affects the severance” in the printed BNS text; (ii) Explanation 5 reads “The consent mentioned in the definition” in the IPC and “The consent mentioned in this section” in the BNS; (iii) in Illustration (o) the IPC reads “such property as she has not authority from Z to give” and the BNS reads “she has no authority from Z to give”; (iv) Illustration (p) ends “takes that property out of B’s possession” in the IPC and “out of Z’s possession” in the BNS; (v) spelling variations: “jeweller” (three times) and “high-road” in the IPC against “jeweler” and “highroad” in the BNS, “inasmuch” (three times) against “in as much”, “therefor” against “therefore”, and “authorized” against “authorised”; and (vi) punctuation: a full stop after “consent” in BNS Illustration (b) where the IPC has a comma, and a full stop after the heading “Illustrations” in the BNS. None of these differences alters the ingredients of the offence, so this row is classed as Exact.
303(2) and IPC Section 379. IPC Section 379 read: “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.” BNS Section 303(2) keeps that first tier word for word and then adds two things. First, a second-conviction tier: “in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine.” Second, a proviso: “in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.” The IPC had neither. Note that the IPC section was a separate section (379) while the BNS folds the punishment into sub-section (2) of the same section that defines the offence.
(1) Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in this section may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustrations.
(a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft.
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.
(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
(d) A being Z’s servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z’s consent. A has committed theft.
(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust.
(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.
(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.
(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweler, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweler any debt for which the jeweler might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly.
(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.
(m) 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 for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
(n) A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorised to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
(o) A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that property out of Z’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.
(2) 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 and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Sub-section (1) is the definition of theft. It has five ingredients that must all be present: (i) movable property; (ii) an intention to take it dishonestly; (iii) the property is in the possession of a person; (iv) the taking is without that person’s consent; and (v) the accused moves the property in order to such taking. Theft is complete when the property is moved with that intention; the accused does not have to get away with it, keep it, or sell it. Illustration (c) makes the point: as soon as the bullock begins to move, the theft of the treasure is committed. The offence is therefore one of a completed act of moving plus an accompanying state of mind.
“Movable property” is defined in Section 2(21) as property of every description except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Explanation 1 shows how that plays out: a standing tree is not the subject of theft, but it becomes capable of being stolen as soon as it is severed from the earth, and under Explanation 2 the moving effected by the same act that severs it may itself be a theft (Illustration (a)). “Dishonestly” is defined in Section 2(7) as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. “Wrongful gain” (Section 2(36)) means gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled, and “wrongful loss” (Section 2(37)) means loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Because “gaining wrongfully” and “losing wrongfully” are explained in Section 2(38) to include wrongful retention and wrongful keeping out of property, the intention to keep property from its lawful holder can be enough, as Illustrations (j), (k) and (l) show in treating as dishonest the taking of a watch held as security or pawned, or of a thing taken in order to extract a reward for returning it, even where the accused has some claim on the thing.
The property must be “in the possession” of someone. Possession is wider than ownership or physical holding: under Section 3(3), property held by a person’s spouse, clerk or servant on that person’s account is in that person’s possession, and a person employed temporarily or for a particular occasion counts as clerk or servant for this purpose. Illustration (e) marks the boundary: where Z has entrusted his plate to a warehouse keeper, the plate is no longer in Z’s possession, so the keeper’s dishonest sale is not theft (though the illustration notes it may be criminal breach of trust), while Illustration (f) shows a ring lying on a table in Z’s own house is still in Z’s possession. Illustration (g) shows property lying on the highroad in no one’s possession cannot be stolen, though criminal misappropriation may arise.
Explanation 3 defines “moving” broadly: a person moves a thing by removing an obstacle, by separating it from another thing, or by actually moving it. Explanation 4 extends this to animals: a person who by any means causes an animal to move is said to move the animal and everything the animal carries because of that motion (Illustrations (b) and (c)). Explanation 5 says consent may be express or implied, and may be given by the person in possession or by anyone with express or implied authority for that purpose; Illustrations (m), (n) and (o) show how an honest belief in implied consent, or in authority to give alms, negates the offence, while a paramour taking valuables he knows the wife had no authority to give commits theft. Illustration (p) confirms that a taking in good faith under a belief that the property is one’s own is not dishonest and so is not theft.
Theft should be kept distinct from its neighbours. Criminal misappropriation (Section 314) and criminal breach of trust (Section 316) involve property that is already in the accused’s hands (in the case of criminal breach of trust, property entrusted to him); theft requires a moving out of another’s possession without consent. Extortion (Section 308) and robbery (Section 309) involve fear or force. Section 304 (snatching) is the separate offence of sudden or forcible seizing. Section 303(1) only defines the offence; the penalty is in sub-section (2), and the aggravated forms of theft are in Sections 305, 306 and 307.
Sub-section (2) fixes the punishment for the offence defined in sub-section (1) and has three distinct layers. The base punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both. “Either description” means the Court may choose between rigorous and simple imprisonment (Section 7 lets the Court direct that the sentence be wholly rigorous, wholly simple, or partly each), and because “fine” has no stated cap the amount is governed by Section 8(1) (unlimited but not excessive). This is the punishment that IPC Section 379 provided, in the same words.
The second layer is new. On a second or subsequent conviction “under this section”, the Court must impose rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and up to five years, and fine. Two features stand out on the text. The minimum of one year is a floor, so the Court has no discretion to go below it for a repeat offender, and the sentence is a fixed combination of rigorous imprisonment plus fine, rather than an either-or choice. The provision speaks of conviction “under this section”; the aggravated forms in Sections 305, 306 and 307 carry their own separate punishments.
The third layer is the proviso. It applies only where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees and the person is convicted for the first time, and it operates “upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property”. In that situation the proviso says the person “shall be punished with community service”. Community service is listed as a form of punishment in Section 4(f). The text as printed contains the words “shall” twice in one clause; this page reproduces it exactly and draws no conclusion beyond its wording: three conditions appear in the proviso — property value below ₹5,000, first conviction, and return or restoration.
Under the BNSS First Schedule, the row for Section 303(2) records the second-conviction tier (rigorous imprisonment, not less than one year, up to five years, and fine) as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate. A separate line for the case where the value of property is less than ₹5,000 records the community-service outcome as non-cognizable and bailable, again triable by any Magistrate. The first compounding table in BNSS Section 359 lists Section 303(2) as compoundable by the owner of the property stolen, without the need for the Court’s permission. The First Schedule does not print a separate row for the first-conviction tier of up to three years; that gap is flagged here rather than assumed away.
On the text of the section, the facts that matter for the tiers are the value of the property, whether there is a prior conviction under this section, and whether the property or its value has been returned. Whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the proviso is for the Court to determine on the evidence.
The accused, intending to take movable property dishonestly out of another person’s possession without that person’s consent, must move the property in order to such taking. The offence is complete on the moving; the accused need not carry the property away or benefit from it. Illustration (c) to the section treats theft of the treasure as done as soon as the bullock begins to move.
Yes, on the wording of the section. Illustration (k) states that a person who has pawned his watch and takes it out of the pawnee’s possession without consent, not having paid what he borrowed, commits theft even though the watch is his own, because he takes it dishonestly. Illustration (p) shows the opposite case: a person who honestly believes the property to be his own does not take it dishonestly.
For a first offence, imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both. On a second or subsequent conviction under the section, rigorous imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years, together with fine. The proviso provides for community service where the property is worth less than ₹5,000, the person is convicted for the first time, and the value or the property is returned.
According to the BNSS First Schedule, the line for Section 303(2) is cognizable and non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate, while the separate line for property below ₹5,000 (the community-service outcome) is non-cognizable and bailable. Section 303(2) is in the first compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so the owner of the property stolen may compound it without the Court’s permission.
The definition in sub-section (1) is unchanged in substance from IPC Section 378 (the differences are drafting-level only: the words “effects” and “affects” in Explanation 2, “the definition” and “this section” in Explanation 5, “not” and “no” in Illustration (o), “B” and “Z” in Illustration (p), and spelling and punctuation variations). The punishment in sub-section (2) is new in two respects: a mandatory rigorous imprisonment tier of one to five years plus fine on a second or subsequent conviction, and the community-service proviso for first-time theft of property worth less than ₹5,000 upon return or restoration.