Stolen Property under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The concept of stolen property is integral to the criminal justice system, addressing the consequences that follow the act of theft. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has recast various penal provisions while retaining the foundational principles. Stolen property finds its mention in BNS under provisions relating to theft, receiving stolen goods, and criminal possession.

Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds closely to Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, both defining "stolen property" in substantially the same terms, thereby ensuring continuity in the legal framework governing offences related to possession and dealing in stolen goods

Concept and Meaning of ‘Stolen Property’

Section 317(1) defines “stolen property” as follows:

(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.

Meaning thereby, stolen property refers to any item acquired through theft, extortion, robbery, cheating, misappropriation, or breach of trust, whether in India or abroad; however, it ceases to be "stolen property" once it lawfully comes into the possession of someone entitled to it.

Essentials of the Offence

To establish an offence under Section 317 BNS, the prosecution must prove the following:

1. The Property is Stolen

This must be proven through evidence showing theft, robbery, extortion, criminal misappropriation, or breach of trust.

In Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor (1931), the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of several accused primarily based on the recovery of stolen cash shortly after the dacoity. Each accused was found with amounts closely matching their alleged share of the loot, mostly in one-rupee coins. The uniformity and timing of these recoveries strongly supported their involvement in the crime.

2. Dishonest Receipt or Retention

The offender must have received or retained the property dishonestly. This implies wrongful gain or loss as defined under BNS.

3. Knowledge or Reason to Believe

Mere possession is not sufficient. The prosecution must establish that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.

Meaning of "Reason to Believe"

The expression "reason to believe" is a higher standard than mere suspicion. It implies that a reasonable man under the circumstances would conclude that the property is stolen.

Punishment for Dishonest Receipt or Retention of Stolen Property

Sub-section (2) of Section 317: 

Any person who, with dishonest intent, receives or retains property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen, shall face:

• Imprisonment for up to three years, or
• A fine, or
• Both.

Involvement of Dacoity or Gang of Dacoits [Section 317(3)]

If a person dishonestly receives or retains property knowing or suspecting that it was obtained through dacoity, or

receives such property from someone known or reasonably believed to be part of a dacoit gang, and believes the property to be stolen, then he shall be liable to:

• Life imprisonment, or
• Rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, and
• A fine.

Habitual Dealing in Stolen Property [Section 317(4)]

Anyone who makes a habit of receiving or dealing in property that he knows or suspects to be stolen shall be punished with:

• Life imprisonment, or
• Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to ten years, and
• A fine.

Aiding in Concealment or Disposal [Section 317 (5)]

Anyone who voluntarily helps in hiding, disposing of, or getting rid of property that he knows or has reason to believe is stolen, shall be punished with:

• Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to three years, or
• A fine, or
• Both.

Case Law

Emperor v. Abdul Gani Bahadurbhai (2025)

The Court emphasised that despite certain peculiarities in the case, its duty remained clear—it was one of circumstantial evidence concerning both the accused’s knowledge and intention, and whether the drafts in question qualified as "stolen property" under Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code (currently Section 317 of BNS).

The Court held that the prosecution must establish that the only reasonable conclusions consistent with the evidence are that the drafts were stolen and that the accused knew this. If the accused could offer any alternative explanation that is reasonably possible or even moderately probable, he would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the case against him must fail.

Conclusion

The offence of dealing with stolen property under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, continues the criminal law legacy with modernised terminology and extended scope. By criminalising not just the act of theft but also the subsequent possession and dealing of stolen goods, the law closes the loop on criminal profiteering.

The focus on mental state—dishonesty and knowledge—ensures that only culpable conduct is penalised while safeguarding innocent purchasers. As India modernises its criminal code, the nuanced handling of stolen property will remain a cornerstone of ensuring justice, protecting victims, and deterring illicit markets.

References

[1] Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor AIR 1932 Bombay 286

[2] Emperor v. Abdul Gani Bahadurbhai (1925)27 BOMLR 1373

[3] India Penal Code (1860)

[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023)