Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of criminal misappropriation of property
Section 403: Dishonest misappropriation of 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The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
Explanation 1.—A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.
Illustration
Explanation 2.—A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it. What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real owner cannot be found.
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 403
-
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.
-
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…
- Prakash Aggarwal v. Ganesh Benzoplast Limited
- Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Motamarri Appanna Veerraju @ Mav Raju v. The State of West Bengal
- Dr. Lakshman v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Shri Uday Krishna Paul v. M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.
- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
- Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. Anr.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Hindustan National Glass & Ind. Ltd. and Ors.
- Lee Kun Hee & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
- Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. v. Monica
- Thelapalli Raghavaiah v. Station House Officer and Ors.
- M/S Indian Oil Corporation v. M/S Nepc India Ltd. and Ors.
- U. Dhar and Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.
- Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- State of West Bengal v. Narayan K. Patodia