⚖️ Advocates & Legal Advice  ·  📞 +91 90415 43645  ·  ✉️ support@lawyerdhundo.com
Home / IPC ↔ BNS / IPC 378

IPC 378 vs BNS 303(1)

Theft

● Retained in BNS

Intending to dishonestly take movable property out of someone's possession, without their consent, and moving that property to effect the taking, is theft under BNS Section 303(1) -- word-for-word the same definition as IPC 378. This is a definitional provision with no punishment of its own; the punishment (up to 3 years for a first offence) sits in BNS Section 303(2), already covered by this tool under IPC 379.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 · § 378

Section 378 IPC defined theft as intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person, without that person's consent, and moving that property in order to effect such taking. Five Explanations clarified the scope -- covering property attached to the earth (not theft until severed), a moving effected by the same act as the severance, causing a thing to move by removing an obstacle, moving an animal (and everything it consequently moves), and that consent may be express or implied. Nine illustrations covered scenarios from felling a tree to a servant absconding with entrusted plate.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · § 303(1)

BNS Section 303(1) reproduces the definition, all five Explanations, and all nine illustrations, with no substantive change. One immaterial variant surfaces in Explanation 2: the BNS text reads "the same act which affects the severance," where the IPC reads "effects the severance" -- almost certainly a drafting slip rather than an intended change, since it renders the clause less grammatically coherent, not more.

What changed?

Nothing substantive changed. Theft's definition, Explanations, and illustrations are retained verbatim in BNS 303(1), with a single one-word variant in Explanation 2 ("affects" for "effects") that reads as an inadvertent wording slip rather than a deliberate edit.

Frequently asked questions

What defences are commonly raised under IPC 378?

This is a definitional provision; it carries no independent punishment, bail, cognizability or compounding rules of its own. Those sit under the companion punishment sub-section, BNS 303(2) (IPC 379, already published). Common defences to the underlying offence include a bona fide claim of right to the property (negating dishonest intention), the owner's actual or implied consent to the taking, and that the property was immovable or otherwise not the subject of theft at the relevant time.

⚖️ Facing a matter under this section? Find a verified criminal advocate →

Summaries are for general information and are not legal advice. For the authoritative bare-act text, see the official Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (full amended text, as it stood before repeal) on India Code, or the Ministry of Home Affairs' new criminal laws page. ← All comparisons

💬