Section 411:

Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property

Submitted by:
Apoorva Tyagi
Batch: 2018-2023
BBA.LL.B.
Division C
PRN: 18010224126

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In the month of
January, 2020

Under the guidance of

Ms. Meera Mathew
Assistant Professor
 Certificate

The project entitled “Section 411: Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property” submitted to
Symbiosis Law School, Noida for Law of Crimes Paper I: Indian Penal Code as part of Internal
assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Ms. Meera Mathew
from December 2019 to January 2020. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere
for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research report has been
duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate:

Date: 24th January, 2020

2
 Table of Contents

Content Page no.

Jurisprudence 4
Meaning of Section 5
Research Questions 7
Explanation 7
Suggestions and Conclusion 9
Bibliography 10

3
 List of Cases

Case Name Citation

Haughton v smith 1866 LR ICCR 15
AG Edgecombe v. Emperor AIR 1928 Cal 264
Jhagru Kurmi v. State AIR 1950 All 497
Satnarain Sao v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 1561

4
Jurisprudence
As per the Nation Crime Records Bureau’s “Crime in India; Year 2018” report, the total
number of incidents of Theft, Burglary, Robbery, and Dacoity were estimated be over 7,59,700,
making up for 24.3% of the total incidents reported under the Indian Penal Code.1 In a country
where 1/4th of the crimes reported under the official criminal code relate to offences of such
nature, a market for stolen goods is an encouragement that the country cannot afford to let
flourish. However, this is not a contemporary problem. The first Crime in India report of the
year 1953 also indicates that crimes such as theft, robbery, dacoity, etc. made up for over 45%
of the total cognizable crimes reported under the IPC.2 Thus we come to Sections 410 to 414
under chapter XVII of the IPC (Offences Against property), relating to the receipt of stolen
property.
In order to curtail crimes of the nature of theft, robbery, burglary, etc., it is crucial to ensure
that there exists no demand of such goods in what would become a “market of stolen goods”,
which is ironic when we consider the fact that one of the most popular markets in India is “Chor
Bazaar” (which translates to “thief’s market”). The primary reason for the flourishment of such
markets in India is the availability of these wrongfully acquired goods at extremely low rates,
especially when compared to the market prices of these goods. The difference in the price
invariably attract many buyers and thus provide a market for the articles wrongfully gained.3
While Section 411 does fall under the chapter of offences against property, it varies from
crimes like thefts, robbery, burglary, etc. in nature as it has been made punishable in order to
deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying or concealing stolen property.
Therefore, in order to discourage theft, need was felt to make the dealing and acceptance of
stolen property a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code. The said offence has been
punishable under the code since its very inception and while what constitutes as stolen property
has been amended thrice, Section 411 has been amended only once under a state amendment
(Criminal Laws (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1993)4 whereby a more rigorous punishment
was introduced in cases where the stolen article was an idol or icon stolen from any building
used as a place of worship.

1
NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, CRIME IN INDIA 2012 (2013). [EBOOK]. Retrieved from
http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2012/Statistics2012.pdf
2
NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, CRIME IN INDIA 1953 (1954). [EBOOK]. Retrieved from
http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII1953/statistics1954.pdf
3
K. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW, 803 (12TH ED. 2016).
4
Criminal Laws (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1993, No.28, Tamil Nadu Acts and Ordinances, 1993.

5
Meaning of Section
To understand what ‘dishonestly receiving’ stolen property means, it is first important to
understand which property is considered as stolen property as per the code. According to
Section 410, the possession of any property, when acquired by theft, or by robbery, or by
extortion, or has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of
trust has been committed, classifies as “stolen property”, irrespective of whether such transfer
was made within or without India. Here, ‘without India’ refers to any act committed by an India
citizen outside of India, where the said act may or may not be an offence. An important feature
to note here is that in order to be termed as stolen property, it is necessary that the property
must have gone out of the control of the owner and must have been received by the accused as
stolen property, and not in any other manner. Thus, say in a case where an inspector or
superintendent discovers that the property is being stolen and delivered to a particular person,
the said person cannot be held liable under s 411 since when the discovery of the theft was
made, the property came back into the possession of the rightful owners and thus, ceased to be
stolen property.5
In essence, Section 411 penalises the dishonest receipt and/or retention of stolen property with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine, or with both. However, the mere receipt
or retention of stolen property by itself cannot be said to constituent of a crime under s 411, the
following criterion need to be met:
1. The property must have been dishonestly received or retained: S 411 does not deal
with the mere receipt or retention of stolen property, because in such a case the section
would in fact be imposing punishment on another victim of the crime. The section
clearly indicates the necessity of a dishonest intention. It is also important to establish
the difference between dishonest reception and dishonest retention. While in both cases,
it is necessary that the accused acquires possession from someone else, and must not
be the person who in fact committed the offence of theft, robbery, burglary, or any such
offence against property, the key distinction between the two lies in the incidence of
dishonesty. While dishonest reception of stolen property indicates that the intent of the
accused was dishonest from the outset itself, dishonest reception implies that the
property was received under good faith, however the retention was impugned due to
supervention of the dishonesty after the act of acquisition. It is important to note here

5
Haughton v. Smith, (1866) L.R. I.C.C.R. 15

6
 that the law imposes liability not only on the person who receives stolen property
dishonestly, but also on the person that retains it dishonestly.
2. Receiving or retaining stolen property with the knowledge that it was stolen: The
essence of receiving stolen property consists in the receipt or retention of property with
knowledge or reason to believe at the time of receipt or retention that the property was
stolen. It must be noted here that ‘reasonable belief’ differs from ‘suspect’ i.e., the
circumstances must be such that a reasonable man would have felt convinced in his
mind that the property with which he was dealing must be stolen property. To clarify,
mere carelessness, omission to make inquiries or having reason to suspect that the
property was stolen alone is not sufficient to render a person guilty as per s 411.
However, the law is vague when it comes to what it expects from buyers to dissolve
them of the liability under s 411 and thus, we can only analyse case laws and
judgements of cases involving receipt of stolen property to answer the question of what
is expected of buyers while dealing in goods.

7
Research Question
1. How has the Judiciary interpreted ‘having reason to believe the same to be stolen
property’ and how is the same interpreted when read with Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 which gives the Court discretionary powers to presume that a man
who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received
the goods knowing them to be stolen?
2. Why is the offence classified under Schedule 1 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
and what is the reasoning behind the same?
3. Has the failure to amend the law in over 160 years led to it becoming archaic and
wrongfully retained in the same category it was placed when the law was first enacted?

Explanation

Since the law itself is extremely vague in enunciating what ‘having reason to believe’ means
with respect to knowledge of the goods being stolen property, courts now depend on case laws
and precedents to interpret what is expected out of buyers to establish reasonable doubt. The
same can be understood with the help of the judgement in the case of Satnarain Sao v. State of
Bihar.6
In this case, the Court claimed that it was entitled to make certain presumptions if they were
likely to happen in the common course of natural events or according to general human
conduct, among others. The court’s reasoning of the same was backed by section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act which gives the court enough discretionary power to draw certain
inferences from the facts. However, the presumption under this section is discretionary and not
mandatory. As confirmed by the court, the facts of each case must be ascertained subjectively.
As illustrations, Section 144 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads:
“The Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods
soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them
to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”
Therefore, it can be generally understood that:
1. The test of establishing guilt is to examine if the circumstances were such that a
reasonable man in the accused’s shoes would have felt convinced in his mind that the
property with which he was dealing must be stolen property.7

6
A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1561 (India).
7
AG Edgecombe v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1928 Cal 264 (India).

8
 2. The facts of each case must be ascertained subjectively.
3. The Court cannot reasonably expect every buyer to make inquiries at the time of
receiving the property whether it was obtained honestly or not.8
In essence, it is not sufficient to show that the accused was careless, had reason to suspect that
the property was stolen or that he failed to make specific enquiry as to if the goods were
obtained dishonestly or honestly.
The offence of Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen is classified as a
cognizable and non-bailable offence under Schedule 1 of the CrPC. This essentially means that
in cases where a person is accused of a crime under s 411 of the IPC, police officers have the
authority to make an arrest without a warrant and start the investigation without the permission
of a court. Further, being a non-bailable offence, any person accused of dishonestly receiving
stolen property loses the right to claim grant of bail and secure his release upon payment of the
same. Ordinarily, cognizable offences are heinous and serious in nature, such as murder, rape,
kidnapping, etc. However, several trade associations and confederations such as the
Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) have recently raised objections to the same.
The classification of this offence under its category is challenged on the grounds that in an
offence where it is purely the discretionary power of the court to assess the account of the
accused for possession of stolen property, denying the accused bail is archaic and wrongful.
Traders, particularly jewellers, cannot be expected to make every vendor account for the source
of each article in the goods being traded. Therefore, this offence should be made bailable, if
not non-cognizable. Misuse of authority granted under this section leads to large scale
harassment of people who are witnesses (if not victims!) at best.
Therefore, keeping in mind the present circumstances of business rivalry, fixing traders on
baseless allegations and targeting them without any substantial evidence cannot be permissible.
If any traders found purchasing theft goods knowingly or indulging into such activities
intentionally, they must be prosecuted but honest traders should not be penalized or victimized
in shelter of these sections and the strict, archaic and unreasonable restrictions they carry.

8
Jhagru Kurmi v. State, A.I.R. 1950 All 497

9
Suggestions and Conclusion
While this section was introduced with the right objectives in mind, failure to amend this
section even once in over 160 years has made it archaic, caused several grievances, and is in
desperate need of amendments. Traders, particularly jewellers, convert old goods in lieu of
new goods and even purchase goods as payment. It is impossible and unreasonable to expect
these traders to know and ask the source of each and every good and it is very likely that theft
goods may exchange hands with traders. As discussed, receiving stolen property is a non-
bailable offence and many a times, those who at best can be called witnesses of the crime, if
not victims, are wrongfully arrested and detained. Thus, there is a need to properly define what
is expected out of purchasers while conducting trade in order to safeguard themselves in case
the goods being exchanged are stolen property.
In addition to this, I believe the following additions and amendments to the section would prove
to be useful and are, in my opinion, the need of the hour:
1. In case the stolen property is the property of the Government or of a local authority, the
punishment for the same should be more rigorous. I believe this should be implemented
in order to protect sensitive government information from people who intend to
purchase it in order to orchestrate larger crimes, since then it constitutes as not only an
offence against property, but also an offence against the state.
2. The code excludes property obtained by cheating from the ambit of ‘stolen property’. I
see no reason as to why this should be the case as even property acquired by criminal
breach of trust or misappropriation comes under the ambit of the same. Hence, I think
that property obtained by cheating should also be included under the purview of stolen
property.
3. Lastly, I believe that s 411 should become compoundable provided that the value of the
property in question does not exceed a reasonable limit. This is to reserve the court’s
resources on more serious, bigger issues and make the process much more expedient.
In conclusion, I believe that the law has rightly identified one of the biggest motivators behind
the commission of offences against property and has imposed a reasonable deterrent to curb
the same. With certain amendments to match this deterrent with the new threats these offence
pose and like any other law in India, better implementation, I believe that this section is one of
the most simple yet incredibly effective and efficient sections formulated.

10
Bibliography

 K. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW, 803 (12TH ED. 2016).

 Law Commision of India, Forty Second Report Indian Penal Code (June, 1971) para
3.4. Retrieved from: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf
 NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, CRIME IN INDIA 1953 (1954). [EBOOK]. Retrieved
from http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII1953/statistics1954.pdf
 NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, CRIME IN INDIA 2012 (2013). [EBOOK]. Retrieved
from http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2012/Statistics2012.pdf

11