Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of the receiving of stolen property
Section 414: Assisting in concealment of 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The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
In plain words
Voluntarily helping to conceal, dispose of or make away with property one knows or has reason to believe is stolen is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or fine, or both.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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.
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 414
-
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…
-
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation…
-
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.
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. The State of Karnataka
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora v. State of Punjab
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan
- Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Krishnan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Narasimha Kumar and Ors.
- Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State Through C.B.I. (A.H.D.) Ranchi, Jharkhand
- State of Bihar v. Sri Ra.Iendra Agrawalla