Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pertains to the offence of receiving stolen property. It specifically addresses situations where a person knowingly accepts, retains, or aids in concealing property that they either know or have reasonable grounds to believe has been obtained through theft. Section 317 BNS lays down graduated punishments depending on the nature and extent of the individual’s involvement, which may include maximum imprisonment anywhere ranging between 3 to 10 years or imprisonment for life or fine or both.  Explore other important Judiciary Notes 

 Section 317 BNS: Stolen Property

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.

Note: “The information provided under Section 317 BNS has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”

Download Free PDF on Section 317 BNS 2023 PDF

Section 317 BNS deals with the offence of receiving stolen property. It applies to any person who knowingly receives, retains, or helps conceal property that has been stolen or unlawfully obtained. Section 317 of BNS does not require the person to have committed the theft themselves; it is enough if they knew or had good reason to believe that the property was stolen. This section treats such conduct as a punishable offence, as it supports or encourages criminal activity by assisting in the handling of stolen goods. Depending on the nature of the stolen property and the circumstances, especially if it was acquired through serious crimes like robbery or dacoity, the punishment can range from imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine or both. Section 317 of BNS ensures that not only those who steal but also those who benefit from or assist in the concealment of stolen property are held liable.

 Section 317 BNS: Essential Elements

For an offence to be punishable under Section 317 BNS 2023 certain important elements must be present. Mentioned hereinafter are some of the important elements:

• Dishonestly Receives

This refers to situations where a person takes possession of property without any legal right or authority, and does so with a dishonest mindset. It suggests that the individual is not acting in good faith, nor do they have the consent of the rightful owner. The dishonest intention under Section 317 BNS is a must and it reflects an awareness that the possession is unlawful and motivated by personal gain.

• Dishonestly Retains

Section 317 BNS applies when someone continues to hold onto property even after discovering, or having good reason to suspect, that it was stolen. Even if the person initially obtained the item innocently, the offence arises once they become aware of its stolen nature and still choose to keep it, without informing the rightful owner or the authorities.

• Any Stolen Property

The term “stolen property” under Section 317 BNS includes a wide range of movable assets obtained through illegal acts such as theft, robbery, extortion, criminal breach of trust, or misappropriation. It is not necessary for the person to know exactly who committed the original offence or how the item was stolen. What matters is that the item qualifies as stolen under the law, and the person receiving or retaining it does so despite its illegitimate origin.

• Knowing or Having Reason to Believe

This is a threshold for establishing guilt under Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused either had actual knowledge that the property was stolen, or that the circumstances were such that a reasonable person in their position would have believed the property to be stolen. This could be inferred from suspicious factors such as a very low sale price, an untrustworthy seller, the manner of delivery, or other unusual red flags.

Section 317 BNS essentially retains the core of Section 410 to 414 of the Indian Penal Code, with changes being done in the main definition. The word, ‘cheating’ is added in section 317(1) BNS which was earlier not present in Section 410 IPC: 

Section 317 BNS: Judicial interpretation

Judicial interpretation of Section 317 BNS by Indian courts has been an outlining factor in determining the ambit of section 317, mentioned hereinafter are some of the landmark judgments on section 317 of BNS which is corresponding to section 410 to 414 of IPC:

• State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (2004)

The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the crucial requirement to establish the accused's knowledge or belief that the recovered goods were stolen, even when the accused was found in possession of items linked to a theft. The court clarified that the mere recovery of stolen property from an individual is not conclusive proof of guilt under Section 411 IPC, now Section 317(2) BNS. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove that the accused either had actual knowledge or that the circumstances surrounding their possession were such that they had reason to believe the property was stolen. 

• Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954)

In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC, now Section 317 BNS, by the Nagpur High Court and restored the magistrate's order of acquittal. The appellant was initially charged with dacoity under Section 395 IPC, now Section 310 BNS, but the High Court, while acquitting him of that charge, convicted him under Section 411 IPC, now Section 317 of BNS, for allegedly receiving stolen property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach, particularly by presuming possession and knowledge of stolen property based on weak evidence, such as recovery from an open field not belonging to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements under Section 411, now Section 317 BNS, namely, the accused’s possession of the stolen goods and knowledge that they were stolen. The conviction was thus deemed unjustified, and the appellant was acquitted.

• Shivraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2020)

The Supreme Court, in this case, held that an accused named Ghanshyam was rightly convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now Section 317 BNS, because he was found to have knowingly received and concealed Rs. 1.5 lakh (Rs. 90,000 at his home and Rs. 60,000 at a rented house), which was linked to a dacoity. His actions demonstrated that he knew or had reason to believe the money was obtained through dacoity, and the prosecution identified him as one of the main conspirators.

In contrast, the other accused Shivraj Singh, Arun, Mahesh, and Rajendra, were convicted under Section 411 IPC now Section 317 of BNS. While there was no direct evidence proving they knew the property was obtained through dacoity, they had reason to believe it was stolen. 

Conclusion

Section 317 BNS 2023, deals with receiving, retaining, or assisting in the concealment of stolen property. This section draws its origin from Sections 410 to 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but with broader applicability as it adds the word, 'cheating' to the main definition. Section 317 of BNS reinforces the principle that even those who were not part of the original theft can still be held liable if they knowingly benefit from or assist in handling stolen property.