Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of the receiving of stolen property
Section 411: Dishonestly receiving stolen property
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 411
-
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on…
-
Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana
Whether the judgment passed by the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable; whether the conviction u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be…
-
Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Whether due process was followed in dismissing the appellant from service and whether his dismissal from service is justified, on facts and in the circumstances; whether, in light of the facts, evidence, witnesses, and…
-
Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the conviction of the accused u/s.120B and 411 IPC, when the seized gold bars are not the same gold bars linked to the fraudulent transactions.
-
The Union of India Through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent without considering the rigours of s.45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
-
Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The appellants herein have preferred appeal against their conviction. Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and appellant-A was convicted u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending,…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to…
-
Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P.
In the instant case wherein FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls within the parameters laid down for…
- Chanchalpati Das v. The State of West Bengal &
- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra
- Iqram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
- Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
- Shiv Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others
- Preet Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District
- Motamarri Appanna Veerraju @ Mav Raju v. The State of West Bengal
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Prahlad Raut v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
- The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bunty
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Raj Kumar@ Raju v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.
- Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora v. State of Punjab
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal v. State of Utiar Pradesh & Anr.
- Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and Another
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay
- Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P.
- Homi Rajvansh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
- V.K. Verma v. CBI
- Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma
- B. Raghuvir Acharya v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Akil@ Javed v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar v. State of Maharashtra
- Kunjumon @ Unni v. State of Kerala
- Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal
- Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
- Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P.
- Ravindra Pal Singh v. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors.
- Sanatan Naskar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
- Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Maharashtra
- Mohammad Yasin v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors.
- Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Eliamma & Anr. v. St Ate of Karnat Aka
- Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
- Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan
- Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors.
- Ram Tawekya Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Gulab Singh and Ors.
- S. Mohan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Md. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam v. State of Rajasthan
- State of U.P. v. Ajai Kumar
- Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Narasimha Kumar and Ors.
- R. Janakiraman v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Cbi, Spe, Madras
- Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka
- Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State Through C.B.I. (A.H.D.) Ranchi, Jharkhand
- Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
- Limbaji and Others v. State of Maharashtra
- Sanjay @ Kaka v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan