Community service for a first petty theft, a mandatory minimum on a second conviction, an entirely new offence of snatching that is non-bailable whatever the value, and vehicle theft quietly raised to seven years. What changed, what the classification really says, and how property is actually recovered in Delhi.
Section 303 of the BNS is theft — dishonestly taking movable property out of another person's possession, without consent, and moving it. It replaced Sections 378 and 379 IPC. The ordinary punishment is up to three years.
Two real changes. Where the property is worth less than ₹5,000, it is a first conviction, and the property or its value has been returned, the punishment is community service. And a second or subsequent conviction carries a minimum of one year, up to five.
Snatching is a brand-new offence — Section 304. There was no equivalent in the IPC. It covers theft where property is suddenly, quickly or forcibly seized from a person. Three years and a mandatory fine — and, crucially, it is non-bailable at any value, while petty theft is bailable and not even cognizable.
Vehicle theft is now a seven-year offence. Section 305 was widened beyond theft in a dwelling to include theft of any means of transport. Almost no page mentions this.
In Delhi, do not file a "lost report" for something that was stolen. The portal itself says such a report is not a subject matter for enquiry or investigation. And report to the police before using the CEIR facility to block a stolen phone — CEIR requires the complaint copy.
| Offence | Old law | New law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of theft | Section 378 IPC | 303(1) BNS | Definitional |
| Punishment for theft | Section 379 IPC | 303(2) BNS | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both — with two new limbs, below |
| Snatching | No equivalent | 304 BNS | Up to 3 years and fine |
| Theft in a dwelling — widened | Section 380 IPC | 305 BNS | Up to 7 years and fine |
| Theft by clerk or servant | Section 381 IPC | 306 BNS | Up to 7 years and fine |
| Theft after preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint | Section 382 IPC | 307 BNS | Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine |
| Robbery | Sections 390 to 394 IPC | 309 BNS | See below |
| Dacoity | Sections 391 and 395 onwards | 310 BNS | See below |
Section 303(2) now has three sentencing limbs rather than one.
| When it applies | The sentence |
|---|---|
| Ordinary theft | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both |
| Second or subsequent conviction | Rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and up to five years, and fine |
| Value less than ₹5,000 + first conviction + property or its value returned | Community service |
Three points about the petty-theft limb, each of which matters:
The BNS lists community service as a punishment, but it is defined in the BNSS, which describes it as work the court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, and for which no remuneration is payable. It is available for only a handful of offences, of which theft is one.
The official classification table gives Section 303(2) two separate rows, and the difference is not cosmetic.
| Ordinary theft | Theft of property under ₹5,000 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cognizable? | Yes | No |
| Bailable? | No | Yes |
Because petty theft is non-cognizable, the police cannot investigate it without an order from a Magistrate. An FIR registered without that order is open to challenge, and at least one High Court has so held.
This is the most important thing on the page for anyone in Delhi, because snatching is the crime most people here actually encounter.
Section 304 is entirely new. There was no snatching offence in the Indian Penal Code; such cases were charged as theft, or stretched into robbery. The Government stated when the new codes came into force that snatching was being made punishable as a distinct offence for the first time.
"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."
"Whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Two features of the definition are worth reading closely.
"Suddenly or quickly or forcibly." The words are disjunctive. Force is not required. A phone lifted quickly out of a hand is snatching even if the victim was never touched.
It is a species of theft. Everything theft requires — dishonest intention, absence of consent, moving the property — must still be present. Snatching is theft plus a manner of taking.
The line matters enormously, because the maximum moves from three years to ten.
| Facts | Section | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| Property taken quietly, no confrontation | 303 — theft | 3 years |
| Property seized suddenly or quickly from the person | 304 — snatching | 3 years and fine |
| The victim is hurt, dragged, restrained, or put in fear of instant harm in order to take the property or carry it away | 309 — robbery | Rigorous imprisonment 10 years — 14 on a highway between sunset and sunrise |
In practice a large part of the defence work on a robbery charge arising from a chain or phone snatch is an argument that the facts belong in Section 304 — that nobody was hurt and no fear of instant harm was caused. Conversely, a complainant who was dragged should say so, in those words, in the first statement.
Section 305 is where the quiet but consequential change sits. Under the old law it covered theft in a building, tent or vessel used as a dwelling or for the custody of property. The new section adds several categories:
Section 306 covers theft by a clerk or servant of property in the possession of the master — seven years. The question that decides these cases is whether the property was in the master's possession or had been entrusted to the employee, because entrustment takes it out of theft and into criminal breach of trust.
Section 307 covers theft after preparation has been made for causing death, hurt or restraint — rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. The gravamen is the preparation. If the preparation is actually used, the offence becomes robbery.
Section 309 consolidates the old robbery provisions into one section. Its structure:
| Sub-section | What it does |
|---|---|
| 309(1) | In all robbery there is either theft or extortion |
| 309(2) | When theft is robbery — where the offender causes or attempts to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of it, in order to commit the theft or to carry away the property |
| 309(3) | When extortion is robbery — where the offender is present and puts the person in fear of instant harm, inducing immediate delivery. See our page on Section 308 |
| 309(4) | Punishment — rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine; up to 14 years if committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise |
| 309(5) | Attempt to commit robbery — rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years |
| 309(6) | Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery — life, or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years |
Section 310 is dacoity — robbery by five or more persons acting together — with separate sub-sections for dacoity, for murder committed in dacoity, for preparation, for being part of an assembly for that purpose, and for belonging to a gang. These are tried by a Court of Session.
A number of pages map the old provisions to the new ones incorrectly here, and it is worth setting out plainly.
| Old IPC | Correct new section | What some pages say |
|---|---|---|
| 394 — voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery | 309(6) BNS | Often given as "BNS 311" |
| 397 — robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt | 311 BNS — not less than 7 years | Frequently omitted |
| 398 — attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon | 312 BNS — not less than 7 years | Frequently omitted |
Sections 311 and 312 carry minimum sentences of seven years and are tried by a Court of Session. Getting the number wrong in an application is not a small matter when the section carries a statutory floor.
| 303(2) — ordinary theft | 3 years · cognizable · non-bailable · any Magistrate |
| 303(2) — value under ₹5,000 | Non-cognizable · bailable · needs a Magistrate's order to investigate |
| 304 — snatching | 3 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable at any value · any Magistrate |
| 305 — dwelling, means of transport, place of worship, Government property | 7 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · any Magistrate |
| 306 — clerk or servant | 7 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · any Magistrate |
| 307 — after preparation for death, hurt or restraint | RI 10 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Magistrate of the first class |
| 309 — robbery | RI 10 years (14 on a highway at night) · cognizable · non-bailable · Magistrate of the first class |
| 310, 311, 312 — dacoity and armed robbery | Cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
Four things, and two of them are commonly misunderstood.
Almost every contested theft case turns on dishonest intention, and the usual answer is that the accused believed he was entitled to take the thing.
The Court proceeded on the basis that "temporary removal of a document from the custody of its rightful owner may amount to theft as long as the dishonest intention to gain wrongful gain or cause wrongful loss exists" — and held that producing photocopies to substantiate a legal claim was not theft.
The older authority is to the same effect: even a temporary removal can be theft, because the offence is about the intention at the moment of moving, not about keeping the property permanently.
So the defence is not "I gave it back". The defence is that there was no dishonest intention when the property was moved — because the accused believed in good faith that he was entitled to it, or was acting to assert a claim rather than to cause wrongful loss.
Delhi Police run several online facilities and they are not the same thing. Choosing wrong is the single most expensive mistake a theft victim makes here.
| Facility | What it is | Use it for |
|---|---|---|
| Motor vehicle theft e-FIR | A real FIR | A stolen vehicle |
| Theft of property e-FIR | A real FIR | Stolen property within the categories it covers |
| Lost article report | NOT an FIR | Something genuinely mislaid — a document you need to replace |
"Report lodged under this application is not a subject matter for enquiry/investigation."
The Government's CEIR facility blocks a stolen handset by its IMEI number across every Indian network, assists in tracing it, and allows it to be unblocked if recovered. It is genuinely effective, and it is free.
But the order of steps matters, and nobody explains it:
When property is recovered it goes into police custody, and people assume they get it back when the trial ends. That is not the law, and waiting is a bad idea.
The BNSS allows a court to order the custody and disposal of property produced before it pending the conclusion of the trial — the application commonly called superdari. It can be made as soon as the property is produced.
| What to file with the application |
|---|
| Proof of ownership — invoice, registration certificate, IMEI, warranty card, photographs |
| The FIR and the seizure or recovery memo |
| An undertaking to produce the property in court whenever required, and not to sell or alter it |
| Identity and address proof, and usually a surety |
One evidentiary rule shapes most theft trials, and it cuts against a person found with the property.
The illustration provides that 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."
Three things about it, all of which matter to a defence:
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
It is theft. Sub-section (1) defines it — dishonestly taking movable property out of a person's possession, without their consent, and moving it. Sub-section (2) provides the punishment. It replaced Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024, so an FIR today reads "under Section 303(2) BNS".
Three things, and two of them are significant. Petty theft can now be punished with community service. A second or subsequent conviction now carries a mandatory minimum of one year. And the definition and the punishment, which were two sections, are now one.
Where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, the person is being convicted for the first time, and the property or its value has been returned, the punishment is community service. Note that all three conditions must be met, that exactly ₹5,000 falls outside it, and that restitution is a condition — not something that happens afterwards.
It is a punishment, and the Sanhita is explicit that no remuneration is payable for it. The practical difficulty is that the law does not say how many hours, over what period, supervised by whom, or how performance is verified. Ask for those details to be written into the order itself — otherwise nobody knows when the sentence has been served.
Ordinary theft is cognizable and non-bailable. But theft of property worth less than five thousand rupees appears separately in the classification as non-cognizable and bailable — which means the police need a Magistrate's order before they can investigate it. That distinction is on almost no page and it decides whether an FIR was validly registered at all.
Yes. Section 304 is entirely new — there was no equivalent in the Indian Penal Code, and the Government said at the time that snatching was being made a distinct offence for the first time.
Theft where, in order to commit it, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes, secures, grabs or takes away movable property from a person or from their possession. Note the "or" — force is not required. A phone taken quickly from a hand is snatching even if nobody was touched.
Up to three years, and a fine — the fine is mandatory, unlike ordinary theft.
The classification. Snatching is non-bailable whatever the value. So a snatch of a three-thousand-rupee phone is non-bailable, while lifting the same phone off a table is bailable and not even cognizable. That is the real effect of the new section, and we have not seen it stated anywhere else.
When the victim is hurt, or dragged, or put in fear of instant harm — then it crosses into robbery, and the maximum leaps from three years to ten. In practice a great deal of defence work on a robbery charge is an argument that the facts belong in Section 304.
Section 305, not 303 — and this is the change nobody covers. Section 305 was widened to include theft of any means of transport, of goods carried in one, of an idol or icon in a place of worship, and of Government property, in addition to theft in a dwelling. The punishment is seven years. Vehicle theft is now an aggravated offence.
Section 306 — theft by a clerk or servant of property in the possession of the master. Seven years. Whether the property was in the employee's own possession or the master's is the line between this and criminal breach of trust; see our page on Section 316 BNS.
Theft or extortion plus immediacy. The Sanhita says in terms that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Theft becomes robbery where the offender causes or attempts to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of it, in order to commit the theft or to carry away the property. The punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to ten years — and up to fourteen years if committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise.
That is dealt with within the robbery section itself, and carries imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. A great many pages map that offence to the wrong new section — see the correction on this page.
Yes, for some categories. Delhi Police run an online facility for motor vehicle theft and one for theft of property, and reports made through them are real FIRs. They also run a separate lost article report facility — and that one is not an FIR.
It is the most expensive mistake a theft victim makes in Delhi. The lost-report portal itself states that a report lodged through it "is not a subject matter for enquiry/investigation". No investigation begins, and insurers routinely reject claims based on one. If your property was stolen, do not file a lost report — file an FIR.
Report it to the police first, then block it. The Government's CEIR facility blocks a handset by its IMEI across every Indian network and helps trace it — but the form requires a copy of the police complaint and the complaint number. So the sequence is police report, then CEIR. Doing it the other way round wastes days.
You do not have to wait for the trial to end. The BNSS allows a court to give interim custody of property produced before it — what is commonly called superdari. Apply as soon as the property is produced, with proof of ownership. Property that sits in a malkhana for years deteriorates and vehicles are frequently unusable by the time a trial concludes.
The usual sequence is the FIR, then an untraced report by the police, then its acceptance by the Magistrate, and a certified copy of that order for the insurer. Ask your advocate to follow the untraced report rather than waiting to be told about it, because the insurance claim usually cannot be completed without it.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what was taken, from where, and whether you have already reported it. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.