Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of theft
Section 379: Punishment for 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The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
State amendments to this section
Gujarat.— In the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), after section 379, the following sections shall be inserted, namely:— 379A. Snatching.—(1) Whoever, with the intention to commit theft, suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away fromany person or from his physical possession any moveable property, and makes or attempt to make escape with such property, is said to commit snatching.
(2) Whoever attempts to commit snatching shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) Whoever commits snatching shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.
(4) Whoever, after committing or attempting to commit snatching, causes hurt or wrongful restraint of fear of hurt, in order to effect his escape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence of snatching by the preceding sub-sections. 379B.Snatching after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of snatching.—Whoever commits or attempts to commit snatching, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such snatching, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such snatching, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees. [Vide Gujarat Act 6 of 2019, s. 2]
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 379
-
State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC]
-
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…
-
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.
-
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Access to free and timely legal aid for prison inmates.
-
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Penal…
-
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating lot of fear and panic…
-
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any…
-
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…
- Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
- Chanchalpati Das v. The State of West Bengal &
- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
- Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
- Sadhna Chaudhary v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Narsingh Ispat Ltd v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. The State of Karnataka
- Prashant Singh Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
- Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others
- Chhota Ahirwar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Odisha and Ors. v. Gobinda Behera
- M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru
- G H Kanwar Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Prahlad Raut v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
- Shio Shankar Dubey & Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Department of Customs v. Sharad Gandhi
- Uppala Bixam @ Bixmaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
- Menoka Malik and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others
- Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police
- The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M/S. Vedanta Limited (Formerly Known As Sesa Sterlite Limited) & Ors.
- Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Mani
- Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and Anr.
- State of Jharkhand Through Sp, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Y Aday
- Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput v. State of Gujarat
- Benson v. State of Kerala