Section 317 defines what counts as “stolen property” and sets out four separate punishment tiers for dealing with it — ordinary dishonest receiving, receiving property stolen in a dacoity, habitually dealing in stolen property, and assisting in its concealment or disposal. It consolidates five separate provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 into one section with five sub-sections.
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. At section level, five separate provisions of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 are folded into this one section (a consolidation), each surviving as one of its five sub-sections; each row below carries its own badge, reflecting its own one-to-one correspondence:
| BNS 317(x) | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Definition of “stolen property” | S.410 “Stolen property” | Substantively changed |
| (2) | Dishonestly receiving stolen property | S.411 “Dishonestly receiving stolen property” | Exact |
| (3) | Receiving property stolen in a dacoity | S.412 “Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity” | Exact |
| (4) | Habitually dealing in stolen property | S.413 “Habitually dealing in stolen property” | Exact |
| (5) | Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property | S.414 “Assisting in concealment of stolen property” | Exact |
A word-by-word comparison shows that sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5) carry over the wording and punishment of IPC Sections 411, 412, 413, and 414 respectively (no wording difference was found in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4); in (5) there is none in the operative words). Sub-section (1) differs from IPC 410 by adding “cheating”, by removing the quotation marks around “stolen property”, by dropping the repeated word “by” before each offence, and by joining the final sentence to the one before it with a comma (IPC: “India. But,”; BNS: “India, but,”). Sub-section (1) is a substantive change, although the concordance row for Section 317 carries no “(Change)” tag: comparing the bare text of BNS 317(1) with IPC 410 shows that BNS 317(1) designates property as “stolen property” where its possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, or cheating, or where it has been criminally misappropriated or is the subject of a criminal breach of trust. IPC 410 recognised only theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust as sources of “stolen property” — it did not include cheating. BNS 317(1) therefore adds cheating as a new predicate offence: property obtained by cheating (Section 318) is, for the first time, treated as “stolen property” for the purposes of the four receiving/dealing/concealment offences in sub-sections (2) to (5).
(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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Sub-section (1) does not itself punish anyone; it defines a status — “stolen property” — that the four punishment tiers in sub-sections (2) to (5) all depend on. Property is designated “stolen property” where its possession has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, or where it has been criminally misappropriated or is property in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed. As the concordance section above explains, cheating is a new addition to this list compared to the old law, which means property obtained through a cheating scheme now feeds directly into this section's receiving, habitual-dealing, and concealment offences in a way it did not before. The status is not tied to where the underlying offence happened — it applies whether the transfer, misappropriation, or breach of trust occurred within India or outside it. The status is also not permanent: the sub-section ends by saying that if the property “subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property”. Since sub-sections (2) to (5) each speak of “stolen property”, they are framed around property that still has that status.
This is the base tier, and it applies to anyone who dishonestly receives or retains property knowing, or having reason to believe, that it is stolen property as defined in sub-section (1). The section states the knowledge requirement in two forms: “knowing” the property to be stolen, or “having reason to believe” it to be stolen. Section 2(29) defines “reason to believe”: a person has “reason to believe” a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. The offence can be committed either by receiving the property (taking possession of it in the first place) or by retaining it (continuing to hold onto property already in one's possession after learning of its stolen character) — so, on the words of the sub-section, the offence is not limited to the moment of first receipt.
This tier singles out one specific, graver source of stolen property: dacoity. It is committed in either of two ways — dishonestly receiving or retaining property known or believed to have been transferred through the commission of a dacoity itself, or dishonestly receiving property from a person known or believed to belong (or to have belonged) to a gang of dacoits, where the property is known or believed to have been stolen. The second limb is notable because it does not require the receiver to know the property came from a dacoity specifically — it is enough that the receiver knows or believes the source person to be a dacoit-gang member and that the property itself is stolen. The punishment is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, and the offender “shall also be liable to fine”, compared with up to three years, or fine, or both, under sub-section (2).
The sub-section applies to a person who “habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property”. “Habitually” is not defined in Section 2 and takes its ordinary meaning of a repeated practice, as opposed to a single transaction. The punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and the offender “shall also be liable to fine”.
This tier catches a different kind of conduct from sub-sections (2) to (4): its words do not require the accused to have received or retained the stolen property at all. The sub-section applies where the accused voluntarily assists in concealing, disposing of, or making away with property that they know or have reason to believe is stolen — hiding it on someone else's behalf, helping transport it away from where it might be found, or helping arrange its resale, without ever taking it into their own possession as the receiver. “Voluntarily” is defined in Section 2(33): a person causes an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing them, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. Punishment mirrors sub-section (2)'s base tier: imprisonment of either description up to three years, or fine, or both.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 317 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
Bank drafts bought with the proceeds of a Rs. 6.7-crore fraud, carried out through forged telegraphic transfers at a Nashik branch of Vijaya Bank, were used to buy gold bars from a jewellery firm. The CBI later searched the shop of Nandkumar Babulal Soni and seized 205 gold bars, and he was tried with the bank officials. The Trial Court itself held that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized gold bars were the same bars sold to the fraudster (“the distance between may and must is very vast”), yet it convicted him under old Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 317(2)) read with conspiracy. The High Court upheld this by invoking Section 114 of the Evidence Act, because he had not proved how he lawfully acquired the gold.
The Supreme Court set the convictions aside. Once the courts below had found that the seized bars were not shown to be the same stolen bars, a conviction for receiving stolen property could not stand, and it was wrong to make him prove lawful acquisition of gold the prosecution had not shown to be stolen. The three elements in the passage above must all be proved by the prosecution, including that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen.
Currency check: decided February 2025; applies directly to BNS Section 317(2) (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property), which reproduces old IPC Section 411 essentially verbatim; no overruling found in this review.
A paddy trader was killed in Warangal, Telangana, in December 2005 after collecting about Rs. 2.9 lakh in dues, and the prosecution said his killer took his cash, bike and phone. The accused who allegedly helped dispose of the body, and was said to have been paid Rs. 30,000 out of the stolen money, was tried with the main accused. The Trial Court acquitted both of murder, of causing disappearance of evidence and of theft (old Section 379), rejecting the theory of theft, yet convicted both of dishonestly receiving stolen property under old Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 317(2)). The High Court reduced the sentence to one year but upheld the conviction.
The Supreme Court set the Section 411 conviction aside. It held that once the courts below had concluded that no theft was proved, the property was not shown to be stolen property, and a conviction for dishonestly receiving it cannot be sustained: that the property is stolen property is indispensable, alongside the accused’s knowledge or reason to believe. The Court noted that the prosecution’s whole case arose out of one transaction. It relied on the four-part test in <em>Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh</em>, (2022) 9 SCC 676, which remains a companion authority on the same knowledge ingredient.
Currency check: decided August 2025; applies directly to BNS Section 317(2) (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property), which reproduces old IPC Section 411 essentially verbatim; no overruling found in this review.
No — sub-sections (2) to (5) each require that the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the property was stolen (and sub-sections (2) and (3) also require that he received or retained it dishonestly). Under Section 2(29), a person has “reason to believe” a thing only if he has sufficient cause to believe it. Whether that requirement is met on particular facts is a question of fact.
A single transaction versus a recurring pattern. Sub-section (2) applies to dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, and its words do not require repetition, so a single receipt can fall within it. Sub-section (4) applies to someone who “habitually receives or deals in” such property and carries a heavier punishment (imprisonment for life, or up to ten years, and liability to fine) than the three-year ceiling under sub-section (2).
Yes. Sub-section (1) expressly designates property as “stolen property” where its possession has been transferred by cheating, among the other listed offences. This is a change from the old law, which did not include cheating among the sources of stolen property, so anyone who knowingly receives, deals in, or helps conceal the proceeds of a cheating offence can now be liable under this section's receiving, habitual-dealing, or concealment tiers.