Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of theft
Section 378: Theft
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
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 378
-
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.
-
State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.
What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to attract the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC? What are the essentials to constitute a trespass as criminal trespass? Whether the procedure provided under…
-
Ruchir Rastogi v. Pankaj Rastogi and Others
High Court if justified in quashing the FIR lodged by the appellant against respondents u/ss.457, 380 and 506, IPC.
- Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others
- G H Kanwar Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
- Department of Customs v. Sharad Gandhi
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay
- G. Reddeiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
- State of Punjab v. Chatinder Pal Singh & Ors.
- National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. M/S. Ishar Das Madan Lal
- M/S Indian Oil Corporation v. M/S Nepc India Ltd. and Ors.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal