Offences Against Property — Theft, Extortion, Robbery, Dacoity, Cheating & Breach of Trust (BNS) — Criminal Law I Notes

Theft

A man picks up his neighbour’s umbrella from a stand, meaning to keep it. He has used no force, told no lie — yet the law calls it theft, because he moved another’s property dishonestly, out of the owner’s possession, without consent. Theft is the simplest and most fundamental property offence, and the whole unit is built on its five essentials.

Theft — s.303, BNS [old s.378 IPC]. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property, commits theft.

The five essentials — memorise these:

  1. Dishonest intention — the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss (s.2(7), Unit 1). Without dishonesty, moving property is not theft.
  2. Movable property — only movable property can be stolen (s.2(21) — everything except land and things attached to the earth). A standing tree cannot be stolen; a cut tree can.
  3. Out of the possession of another — the property must be in someone’s possession. (Ownership is not the point — you can steal from a person who possesses but does not own; and you cannot “steal” wild animals or abandoned property that no one possesses.)
  4. Without consent — the taking must be without the consent, express or implied, of the person in possession.
  5. Moving the property — there must be a moving of the property; the offence is complete the moment it is moved with the dishonest intent, even if it is not carried away. Even a slight movement suffices (removing an obstacle that keeps the property in place is itself a moving).

Key points:

  • Temporary taking is enough. The dishonest intention need not be permanent — moving property intending to cause even temporary wrongful loss is theft (K.N. Mehra v State of Rajasthan).
  • Consent obtained by a trick is no consent — but if property is handed over voluntarily, there is no “taking out of possession”, so it may be cheating or breach of trust, not theft.

🧩 Worked example. A finds a ring lying on the road, not knowing whose it is, picks it up, and later sells it knowing the owner could be found. When he first picked it up (not knowing the owner), it was not theft — the ring was arguably out of anyone’s possession. But once he decided to sell it dishonestly, keeping it from the true owner, he committed criminal misappropriation (s.314) rather than theft (because there was no “moving out of possession” of another). Contrast: had A taken the ring from the owner’s pocket, that would be theft — property moved out of the owner’s possession, dishonestly, without consent.

s.303(1), BNS: “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.”

In Simple Terms: theft is dishonestly moving someone’s movable thing out of their possession, without their consent. All five parts must be present — remove any one (no dishonesty, or the owner consented, or nothing was moved) and it is not theft.

flowchart TD
    TH["THEFT s.303"] --> E1["1. Dishonest intention (wrongful gain/loss)"]
    TH --> E2["2. MOVABLE property (not land)"]
    TH --> E3["3. Out of the POSSESSION of another"]
    TH --> E4["4. WITHOUT consent"]
    TH --> E5["5. MOVING the property (even slightly)"]
    TH --> K["Temporary taking is enough (K.N. Mehra)"]

Case Laws

  • K.N. Mehra v State of Rajasthan (1957) — dishonest taking causing even temporary wrongful loss is theft; permanent deprivation is not required.
  • Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of Rajasthan (1963) — temporarily removing a file from a government office and returning it was theft — the temporary deprivation caused wrongful loss.

Snatching

Snatching — s.304, BNS — NEW. For the first time, the BNS creates a distinct offence of snatching: theft is “snatching” if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly, quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away any movable property from a person or from his possession. Punishment: imprisonment up to three years and fine.

Why it was created. The epidemic of chain-snatching, phone-snatching and bag-snatching — often from moving vehicles — did not fit neatly into “theft” (too little force to be robbery, but more sudden and frightening than ordinary theft). The BNS gives this common, distressing urban crime its own name and punishment, sitting between simple theft and robbery.

The dividing line:

  • Theft — a stealthy taking, no sudden grab.
  • Snatching (s.304) — a sudden, quick or forcible seizing — the grab-and-run.
  • Robbery — theft with force or fear used to overpower the victim (a greater degree of violence).

🧩 Worked example. A speeds past B on a motorcycle and grabs the gold chain from her neck, snapping it and riding off. This sudden, forcible seizing is the new offence of snatching (s.304) — it is more than ordinary theft (there was a forcible grab) but need not meet the higher threshold of robbery (no serious violence or fear used to overpower B). If, instead, A had beaten B to take the chain, it would be robbery.

s.304(1), BNS: “Theft is ‘snatching’ if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.”

In Simple Terms: the BNS finally names the everyday crime of the grab-and-run thief — the chain-snatcher, the phone-snatcher. It is theft done by a sudden, forcible grab, sitting between quiet theft and violent robbery.

flowchart LR
    T["THEFT — stealthy taking"] --> S["SNATCHING s.304 🆕 — sudden/forcible GRAB"]
    S --> R["ROBBERY — force/fear to OVERPOWER"]

Case Laws

  • (New offence — no settled precedent yet; the conceptual position is between theft and robbery.)

Extortion

A gangster tells a shopkeeper, “Pay me, or your shop burns tonight,” and the shopkeeper, terrified, hands over the cash. No theft — the money was given, not taken. But it was given under fear, and that fear is the essence of extortion.

Extortion — s.308, BNS [old s.383 IPC]. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or another, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security, or anything signed/sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

The essentials:

  1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury — fear of harm to body, mind, reputation or property (Unit 1’s definition of “injury”);
  2. Dishonestly inducing the person, by that fear, to deliver property; and
  3. The delivery of the property by the frightened person.

Extortion v theft — the classic distinction (the marks are here):

  • Consent. In theft the property is taken without consent; in extortion it is delivered by the victim — but the consent is obtained by fear, so it is not free consent.
  • The act. Theft is a taking; extortion is a giving induced by fear.
  • Property. Theft is only of movable property; extortion can be of any property, including immovable property and valuable securities.
  • Fear. Fear is essential to extortion; it plays no part in theft.

So the crucial difference: in theft the offender takes; in extortion the victim delivers — under compulsion of fear.

🧩 Worked example. A threatens B: “Sign this cheque for ₹1 lakh, or I will publish photographs that destroy your reputation.” B, in fear of injury to his reputation, signs and delivers the cheque. This is extortion (s.308) — A put B in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induced B to deliver a valuable security. Note the contrast with theft: B handed over the cheque (delivery), so it is extortion, not theft; and the property is a valuable security, which extortion covers.

s.308(1), BNS: “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits ’extortion’.”

In Simple Terms: extortion is squeezing property out of a person by frightening them — “pay or else.” The victim hands over the property, but only because of the fear, so the law treats that consent as worthless.

flowchart TD
    EX["EXTORTION s.308"] --> E1["Intentionally put in FEAR of injury"]
    EX --> E2["Dishonestly INDUCE by that fear"]
    EX --> E3["Victim DELIVERS property/valuable security"]
    EX --- D{"vs THEFT"}
    D --> T1["Theft: offender TAKES, no consent, movable only"]
    D --> T2["Extortion: victim DELIVERS under FEAR, any property"]

Case Laws

  • Habib v State (extortion cases) — the gist of extortion is inducing the delivery of property by intentionally putting the victim in fear of injury; the delivery under fear is essential.
  • R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay (1986) — on the meaning of a public servant; and on extortion the settled rule is that a mere threat is not enough — the delivery of property induced by fear completes the offence.

Robbery

The single most-quoted line in the property offences: “In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.” Robbery is not a separate crime born on its own — it is theft or extortion aggravated by violence or the fear of instant violence. Understand that, and the whole topic opens up.

Robbery — s.309, BNS [old ss.390–392 IPC]. Robbery is theft or extortion made graver by force or the fear of instant force. The section builds robbery out of the two offences you already know:

Robbery = Theft + violence/fear. Theft is “robbery” if, in order to commit the theft, or in committing it, or in carrying away property obtained by it, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

Robbery = Extortion + presence + immediacy. Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting him in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint, and thereby induces the delivery then and there.

The key idea. Robbery is the violent species of theft/extortion:

  • from theft, robbery differs by the added violence or fear of instant violence;
  • from extortion, robbery differs by the offender’s presence and the instant nature of the fear (ordinary extortion may be by a threat of future harm, from a distance; robbery is face-to-face and immediate).

Punishment (s.309(4)): rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine; up to fourteen years if committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise; and attempt to commit robbery and robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt are separately and more heavily punished.

🧩 Worked example. A stops B on the road, holds a knife to his throat, and takes B’s wallet. Here the theft of the wallet is accompanied by fear of instant death/hurt caused in B’s presence — so it is robbery (s.309), graver than simple theft. Now the extortion route: if A, present before B and threatening instant violence, forces B to hand over his watch then and there, that extortion becomes robbery too — because of A’s presence and the instant fear. The common thread is violence or immediate fear.

s.309(2), BNS: “In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”

In Simple Terms: robbery is theft or extortion turned violent — the thief who uses or threatens instant force to take or keep the property, face-to-face with the victim. Take away the violence or immediate fear, and it drops back to plain theft or extortion.

flowchart TD
    RO["ROBBERY s.309 — 'theft OR extortion'"] --> TR["THEFT + violence/fear of INSTANT harm"]
    RO --> ER["EXTORTION + offender PRESENT + INSTANT fear + delivery then and there"]
    RO --> P["Up to 10 yrs (14 on a highway at night); attempt & robbery-with-hurt graver"]

Case Laws

  • State of Maharashtra v Vinayak (robbery cases) — the violence or fear must be for the end of the theft/extortion; force used for another purpose does not convert theft into robbery.
  • Harish Chandra v State of U.P. (robbery/dacoity line) — the number of offenders separates robbery from dacoity.

Dacoity

Dacoity — s.310, BNS [old s.391 IPC]. When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons committing/aiding the robbery amounts to five or more, each of them commits dacoity. Punishment: imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine; dacoity with murder (s.311) carries death or life.

The essence — numbers. Dacoity is simply robbery by five or more persons acting together. Everything that makes an act robbery (theft/extortion + violence/instant fear) plus the magic number of five turns it into dacoity — the gravest of the property offences, because an armed gang terrorises far more than a lone robber.

Counting the five. The five includes those who commit, attempt, or aid the robbery, present and acting in concert. Preparation (assembling for dacoity, s.310(2)) and belonging to a gang of dacoits (s.312) are separately punishable, because the law strikes at organised dacoity early.

The ladder of gravity — see it whole:

  • Theft (1+) → Snatching (sudden grab) → Robbery (theft/extortion + violence) → Dacoity (robbery by 5+).

🧩 Worked example. Six armed men together break into a house at night, threaten the family with instant harm, and carry away their valuables. Because five or more persons conjointly committed the robbery, each is guilty of dacoity (s.310), whether or not each personally seized the loot. Had only three men done the same, it would be robbery, not dacoity — the number is what separates them.

s.310(1), BNS: “When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit ‘dacoity’.”

In Simple Terms: dacoity is robbery by a gang of five or more. The violence and the taking are the same as robbery — it is the number of criminals acting together that makes it the gravest property crime.

flowchart LR
    T["Theft (1+)"] --> SN["Snatching (grab)"]
    SN --> R["Robbery (+ violence/fear)"]
    R -->|"5 or more persons"| D["DACOITY s.310 — life / 10 yrs; with murder → death (s.311)"]

Case Laws

  • Om Prakash v State (dacoity cases) — the five must act conjointly; the number present and aiding is counted.
  • Ram Chand v State of U.P. — where the number is fewer than five, the offence is robbery, not dacoity.

Criminal misappropriation

Criminal misappropriation — s.314, BNS [old s.403 IPC]. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property commits criminal misappropriation. Punishment: up to two years or fine or both.

The key feature — innocent start, dishonest turn. In theft, the taking itself is dishonest from the first moment. In misappropriation, the property comes into the offender’s hands innocently or by chance — he finds it, or it is handed to him by mistake — and then he dishonestly decides to keep it for himself. The offence lies in the later dishonest conversion, not in the original acquisition.

Finding property. An Explanation deals with the finder: a person who finds property not in anyone’s possession and takes it to protect or return it is not dishonest; but if, knowing or having the means to discover the owner, he appropriates it to his own use without making reasonable efforts to find the owner, he commits misappropriation.

🧩 Worked example. A finds a wallet on a bus seat, its owner nowhere in sight. If A picks it up intending to hand it to the conductor or trace the owner, no offence. But if A, seeing the owner’s ID inside and able to return it, instead pockets the cash for himself, he has dishonestly converted found property to his own use — criminal misappropriation (s.314). The wallet came to him innocently (he found it); the crime is the later decision to keep it.

s.314, BNS: “Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

In Simple Terms: misappropriation is keeping for yourself property that came into your hands honestly or by chance — the found wallet, the parcel delivered to you by mistake. The wrong is not in getting it, but in the later dishonest decision to keep it.

flowchart TD
    CM["CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION s.314"] --> A["Property comes INNOCENTLY (found / by mistake)"]
    A --> B["LATER dishonest conversion to own use"]
    CM --- C{"vs THEFT"}
    C --> C1["Theft: dishonest from the FIRST moment of taking"]
    C --> C2["Misappropriation: innocent start, dishonest turn"]

Case Laws

  • Ramaswamy Nadar v State of Madras (1958) — the dishonest intention to misappropriate must be proved; it is the conversion, not the acquisition, that is the offence.

Criminal breach of trust

You give your friend your gold to keep safe while you travel; he sells it and pockets the money. He did not steal it — you handed it to him — but he betrayed the trust on which you gave it. That betrayal of entrusted property is criminal breach of trust.

Criminal breach of trust — s.316, BNS [old s.405 IPC]. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of it in violation of any direction of law or legal contract governing the trust, commits criminal breach of trust.

The essentials:

  1. Entrustment — the property (or dominion over it) was entrusted to the accused (given to him to hold or manage for a purpose);
  2. Dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal in violation of the trust; and
  3. The dishonest state of mind.

The heart of the offence — entrustment. What makes breach of trust distinct is that the accused lawfully received the property, on a trust to deal with it in a particular way, and then betrayed that trust. The wrong is the breach of the entrustment.

Aggravated forms (s.316(3)–(5)). Breach of trust is graver when committed by a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper (s.316(3)), by a clerk or servant (s.316(4)), or by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent (s.316(5)) — punishable up to life for the last, because such persons are trusted with others’ property as part of their calling.

Distinction from criminal misappropriation (the marks are here):

  • Source of possession. In misappropriation, the offender comes to the property by chance or mistake (a finder). In breach of trust, the property was entrusted to him — deliberately given on a trust.
  • The wrong. Misappropriation is dishonestly keeping something that fell into your hands; breach of trust is dishonestly betraying a trust you accepted.
  • Relationship. Breach of trust is essentially misappropriation of entrusted property — the entrustment is the extra, defining element.

🧩 Worked example. A gives his neighbour B a sum of money to deposit in A’s bank account. B, instead of depositing it, spends it on himself. B was entrusted with the money for a specific purpose and dishonestly converted it in violation of that trust — criminal breach of trust (s.316). Contrast: if B had merely found A’s dropped money and kept it, it would be misappropriation, because there was no entrustment. And if B is A’s clerk entrusted with the money in that capacity, the aggravated form (s.316(4)) applies.

s.316(1), BNS: “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract… commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.”

In Simple Terms: criminal breach of trust is betraying property that was entrusted to you — the money given to deposit, the goods given to deliver, the ornaments given to keep. You held it lawfully, on a trust, and then dishonestly kept or misused it.

flowchart TD
    CBT["CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST s.316"] --> E1["ENTRUSTMENT — property/dominion given on trust"]
    CBT --> E2["Dishonest misappropriation/conversion/misuse in violation of the trust"]
    CBT --> AG["Aggravated: carrier, clerk/servant, banker/agent/public servant → up to life"]
    CBT --- V{"vs MISAPPROPRIATION"}
    V --> V1["Misappropriation: property comes by CHANCE (found)"]
    V --> V2["Breach of trust: property ENTRUSTED, then betrayed"]

Case Laws

  • State of Gujarat v Jaswantlal Nathalal (1968) — “entrustment” requires that the property be handed over for a specific purpose, creating a trust; a mere sale is not entrustment.
  • Rashmi Kumar v Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) — a wife’s stridhan entrusted to the husband and misappropriated is criminal breach of trust.

Receiving stolen property

Stolen property (s.317(1), BNS [old s.410 IPC]). Property is “stolen” if its possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust, or which has been so obtained (including outside India).

Receiving/retaining stolen property — s.317(2)–(5), BNS [old ss.411–414 IPC]. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen, is punished — up to three years or fine or both; higher where the property is stolen in a dacoity, or where the receiver habitually deals in stolen property (s.317(5)), or assists in concealing stolen property.

The essentials:

  1. The property was stolen (obtained by one of the property offences);
  2. The accused received or retained it;
  3. He did so dishonestly; and
  4. Knowing, or having reason to believe, it was stolen.

Why it exists. The receiver of stolen goods — the “fence” — is the market that makes theft profitable. By punishing the receiver, the law attacks the demand side of theft: no fences, far less theft. Knowledge or reason to believe (a lower standard — suspicious circumstances a reasonable person would heed) is the mental element.

🧩 Worked example. A buys a nearly-new motorcycle from a stranger in a back alley at a fraction of its value, with no papers and the engine number filed off. Even if A did not know it was stolen, he had every reason to believe it was — and if he dishonestly kept it, he commits receiving stolen property (s.317). The suspicious circumstances (alley, no papers, filed number, throwaway price) supply the “reason to believe”.

s.317(2), BNS: “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… which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

In Simple Terms: buying or keeping goods you know, or ought to realise, are stolen is itself a crime. The law punishes the “fence” because he is the reason theft pays — cut off the buyer, and you cut off the thief.

flowchart TD
    RS["RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY s.317"] --> E1["Property STOLEN (theft/extortion/robbery/misappropriation/breach of trust)"]
    RS --> E2["Dishonestly RECEIVES or RETAINS"]
    RS --> E3["KNOWING or having REASON TO BELIEVE it stolen"]
    RS --> AG["Habitual dealer / dacoity property → graver (s.317(5))"]

Case Laws

  • Trimbak v State of M.P. (1954) — possession of recently stolen property may raise a presumption; but the prosecution must prove the accused knew or had reason to believe it stolen.

Cheating

A conman persuades a widow to hand over her savings for a “guaranteed investment” he never intends to make. He used no force, no fear — only a lie, and the lie deceived her into parting with her money. That deception for gain is cheating.

Cheating — s.318, BNS [old s.415 IPC]. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the deceived person to deliver any property, or to consent to the retention of property, or intentionally induces the deceived person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do if not deceived, and which act/omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, commits cheating.

The two limbs — note both:

  1. Deception inducing delivery of property (the property limb); or
  2. Deception inducing an act or omission causing harm (the harm limb) — cheating need not always be about property; deceiving someone into a harmful act is also cheating.

The essentials:

  1. Deception of a person (a false representation, express or implied);
  2. Fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property, or an intentional inducement to do/omit an act; and
  3. Resulting delivery of property or damage/harm.

A crucial point — intention at the outset. For cheating, the dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the promise/representation. A person who genuinely intends to keep a promise but later fails is guilty of a breach of contract, not cheating. The dividing line is the intention when the inducement was made (Hari Prasad Chamaria v Bishun Kumar Surekha).

Cheating by personation — s.319, BNS [old s.416 IPC]. A person cheats by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or another is a person he is not — e.g. impersonating someone to sit an exam, or to draw their pension.

🧩 Worked example. A falsely represents himself as B to a bank and withdraws money from B’s account. He has committed cheating by personation (s.319) — deceiving the bank by pretending to be B, dishonestly inducing it to deliver B’s money. Now the contract line: if A borrows money genuinely intending to repay but later cannot, that is a civil breach, not cheating — but if A borrowed never intending to repay, the dishonest intention existed at the outset, and it is cheating (s.318).

s.318(1), BNS: “Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver or grant access to any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.”

In Simple Terms: cheating is deceiving someone — by a lie — into handing over property or into doing something harmful they would not have done if they knew the truth. The dishonest intention must be there from the start; a promise honestly made and later broken is only a breach of contract.

flowchart TD
    CH["CHEATING s.318"] --> D["DECEPTION (false representation)"]
    D --> L1["Induces DELIVERY of property (property limb)"]
    D --> L2["Induces an ACT/OMISSION causing harm (harm limb)"]
    CH --> INT["Dishonest intention must exist AT THE OUTSET (else only breach of contract)"]
    CH --> PER["s.319 Cheating by PERSONATION — pretending to be another"]

Case Laws

  • Hari Prasad Chamaria v Bishun Kumar Surekha (1974) — cheating requires dishonest intention at the time of the inducement; a subsequent failure to keep a promise is not cheating.
  • Akhil Kishore Ram v Emperor (1938) — a false representation inducing delivery of money (a fraudulent “prayer” scheme) is cheating.
  • Mahadeo Prasad v State of West Bengal (1954) — taking delivery of goods intending from the start not to pay is cheating, not a mere contractual default.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNS topics

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam