A man was accused of moving sand worth about ₹1,500. The police registered a first information report against him under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. On paper, an ordinary petty-theft case. In practice, it became a lesson in how badly the punishment for theft under Section 303 BNS can be misapplied when nobody checks the value first.
The accused did not argue about whether he took the sand. He went to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and argued something narrower: the police were never allowed to register that FIR in the first place. Why? Because the value was below ₹5,000.
In January 2026, Justice Dr. V. Jyothirmai Pratapa agreed and quashed the proceedings. The Court held that theft of property worth less than ₹5,000 under Section 303(2) is a non-cognizable offence. For non-cognizable offences, the police cannot register an FIR and start investigating on their own. They must first obtain a Magistrate’s direction under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The police had skipped that step entirely, so the whole exercise was an abuse of process (P. Rashidulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 10465 of 2025).
Here’s why that case matters far beyond one load of sand. Under the old Indian Penal Code, theft was theft: the value of the stolen item changed the sentence a court might pass, but not much else. Under the BNS, value now changes the category of the offence. Cross ₹5,000 and theft is cognizable and non-bailable. Stay below it on a first offence and the same act becomes non-cognizable, bailable, and punishable by community service rather than jail.
That single shift is the most misunderstood part of the new law, and it trips up police, complainants, and young lawyers alike. So before you assume a theft case means an arrest and a trial, it pays to know exactly what Section 303 says, what it punishes, and how the punishment scales.
Under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, theft is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or a fine, or both. On a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of one to five years and a fine. A first-time offender who steals property worth less than ₹5,000 and returns it can instead be sentenced to community service.
This guide breaks down each tier of punishment, the exact conditions for the community service option, when theft is bailable or cognizable, which court tries it, and how Section 303 maps onto the IPC sections it replaced.
What theft actually means under Section 303(1) BNS
Before you can talk about punishment, you have to know what counts as theft. Did you know the BNS splits the offence into two parts that the IPC kept in a single flow? Section 303(1) defines theft. Section 303(2) punishes it.
Section 303(1) carries the old Section 378 of the IPC forward almost word for word. It says that 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 take it, commits theft. Strip away the legal phrasing and five ingredients have to line up together.
There must be a dishonest intention. The property must be movable. It must be taken out of someone’s possession. It must be taken without that person’s consent. And the accused must move the property to take it. Miss any one of these and the offence is not theft, which is exactly where a lot of defences begin.
A quick illustration the statute itself uses: A cuts down a tree on Z’s land, intending to take it dishonestly without Z’s consent. The moment A severs the tree so that it can be moved, A has committed theft. The same logic covers a wallet lifted from a pocket, a phone taken off a café table, or a bag of cement carried off a worksite. If you want to go deeper on what qualifies as “movable property,” our explainer on movable property as the subject matter of theft unpacks the edge cases.
The point worth holding on to is this. Section 303(1) tells you what theft is. Everything about punishment, bail, and community service flows from Section 303(2).
Punishment for theft under Section 303(2): the three tiers
So what does a theft conviction actually cost? The answer depends on which of three situations you’re in, and the statutory text packs all three into a single dense sentence.
Section 303(2) reads: “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 and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine; Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.”
Read slowly, that’s three separate punishment tiers.
Tier one: ordinary theft. A person convicted of theft can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both. “Imprisonment of either description” means the court can choose simple or rigorous imprisonment. The section does not cap the fine, so the amount is left to judicial discretion based on the value involved and the circumstances.
Tier two: the repeat offender. This is the part most summaries get wrong. On a second or subsequent conviction under Section 303, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year, extending up to five years, and a fine. That one-year figure is a floor, not a ceiling. The court cannot go below it. A habitual thief, in other words, loses the option of a fine-only sentence and faces a mandatory minimum jail term.
Tier three: the petty first-time offender. This is the genuinely new idea, and it gets its own section below. If the stolen property is worth less than ₹5,000, the offender has no prior conviction under this section, and the property (or its value) is returned, the court can sentence the person to community service instead of jail.
The practical reality is that most everyday theft, a first offence over ₹5,000, sits squarely in tier one: up to three years, with the actual sentence shaped by value, recovery, and the accused’s record. The headline three-year maximum hasn’t changed from the IPC. What’s changed is everything around it.
Can you really avoid jail for theft? Under the BNS, for the first time in Indian criminal law, the answer is yes, but only inside a very narrow box. The proviso to Section 303(2) lets a court order community service in place of imprisonment, and three conditions must all be satisfied at the same time.
- Value below the line. The stolen property must be worth less than ₹5,000. Not equal to, not “around.” Below.
- A clean record under this section. The person must be convicted for the first time. A prior theft conviction knocks out the option and pushes the case toward tier two.
- Return or restoration. The offender must return the value of the property or restore the stolen item itself. Restitution is built into the rule, not optional.
Only when all three boxes are ticked does community service come into play. If the value is ₹5,200, the rule doesn’t apply. If it’s a second theft, the rule doesn’t apply. If the property is gone and nothing is returned, the rule doesn’t apply.
What the rule deliberately leaves out is just as important. It does not extend to aggravated theft, such as theft in a dwelling or by a servant (Sections 305 and 306, covered below). And it gives the court room to assess whether the value and first-offence conditions are genuinely met before treating community service as the route. Frankly, this gets overlooked: community service is not a soft default for petty theft. It’s a tightly conditioned alternative, and the conditions are cumulative.
Here’s a fair question almost nobody could answer two years ago: what does “community service” mean as a criminal sentence in India? Until 1 July 2024, the answer was nothing, because no Indian penal statute had ever used it.
The BNS changed that. Section 4 of the BNS lists community service as a recognised punishment, alongside death, life imprisonment, imprisonment, forfeiture of property, and fine. The definition sits in the Explanation to Section 23 of the BNSS, which describes community service as the work that a court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, and for which the convict is not entitled to any remuneration.
Two features define it: the work benefits the community, and it’s unpaid. Since the new laws came into force, courts have ordered tasks such as cleaning public spaces, assisting in government welfare programmes, helping at hospitals or old-age homes, and joining environmental drives. The sentencing court fixes the nature and duration, often with input from a probation officer.
One honest caveat, because overstating this helps no one. The statute does not yet specify a maximum number of hours or a fixed duration for community service, and the operational rules are still settling across states. The principle is clear; the fine print is a work in progress. Treat it as a real but evolving sentencing option, not a fully mapped system.
Is theft cognizable or non-cognizable under BNS? The value bifurcation
This is the part that sent the sand case to the High Court, and it’s the single most useful thing a practitioner can know about Section 303. Whether theft is cognizable depends on the value of what was stolen.
The First Schedule of the BNSS, which classifies every offence, splits theft into two:
| Value of property stolen | Cognizable? | Can police register an FIR without a Magistrate’s order? |
|---|---|---|
| ₹5,000 or more (and any repeat conviction) | Yes, cognizable | Yes |
| Less than ₹5,000, first offence | No, non-cognizable | No, a Magistrate’s direction under Section 174 BNSS is required |
For a cognizable offence, the police can register an FIR and investigate on their own. For a non-cognizable offence, they can’t: they have to take the case to a Magistrate and get permission under Section 174 BNSS before investigating. If you want the underlying concept, our guide to whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable under the BNS lays out the full framework.
That distinction is exactly what the Andhra Pradesh High Court enforced in the ₹1,500 sand case. Because the value was below ₹5,000, the theft was non-cognizable, the police needed magistrate sanction they never obtained, and the FIR could not survive. The practical takeaway for anyone defending a petty-theft case: check the alleged value first. An FIR registered for a sub-₹5,000 first-offence theft, without a Magistrate’s order, is vulnerable to being quashed on that ground alone.
Is theft bailable under BNS? And can you get anticipatory bail?
So if you’re arrested for theft, do you have a right to bail? Once again, the value decides.
Theft of property worth ₹5,000 or more is non-bailable. That word is widely misread, so let’s be exact: “non-bailable” does not mean bail is impossible. It means bail is not a matter of right. The court has discretion, and you apply to the Magistrate or the Sessions Court, which weighs factors like the value involved, the likelihood of recovery, and the accused’s record. Our explainer on bailable and non-bailable offences breaks down how that discretion works.
Petty first-time theft below ₹5,000, by contrast, is bailable. There, bail is a matter of right, and the accused can secure release on furnishing bail at the police station or before the court without the discretionary hurdle.
What if you fear arrest before it happens? Where theft is non-bailable, anticipatory bail is available: the accused can approach the Sessions Court or High Court for pre-arrest protection. For a bailable petty theft, anticipatory bail is largely beside the point, since bail is already a right.
Is theft compoundable? Settling a theft case
A lot of theft cases are, at heart, private disputes: a borrowed item not returned, a falling-out between former associates, a recovered phone. Can the parties simply settle? For theft, yes.
Under Section 359 of the BNSS (the successor to Section 320 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure), theft under Section 303(2) is a compoundable offence. It can be compounded by the owner of the property stolen, and it sits in the list of offences that can be compounded without the court’s permission. In plain terms, if the rightful owner of the property agrees to settle, the compounding has the effect of an acquittal.
Worth flagging, though: the right to compound belongs to the owner of the property, not to anyone else, and this applies to ordinary theft under Section 303(2). For aggravated forms of theft, or where the property was in someone else’s lawful custody, the position can differ, so confirm who actually holds the right to compound before relying on a settlement.
Which court tries theft, and the ₹20,000 summary-trial limit
Where does a theft case actually go, and how fast can it move? Theft under Section 303 is triable by any Magistrate. That keeps it at the base of the criminal court hierarchy, which is appropriate for an offence carrying a three-year maximum.
There’s a speed lever too. Under Section 283 of the BNSS, theft under Section 303(2), where the value of the stolen property does not exceed ₹20,000, can be tried summarily. A summary trial is a streamlined procedure with abbreviated records, designed to clear low-value cases quickly. This ₹20,000 ceiling is a big jump: under the old CrPC, the summary-trial threshold for theft was just ₹2,000, so the BNSS has raised it tenfold. Our detailed walkthrough of how theft is tried summarily under the BNSS covers the procedure end to end.
One catch to remember: a summary trial limits sentencing power. A court holding a summary trial cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months. So summary trial means a faster process, but also a capped sentence, which usually suits exactly the kind of low-value theft it’s meant for.
IPC 379 to BNS 303(2): what changed
If you trained on the IPC, you need a clean map, because the section numbers have all moved. Theft used to live in Sections 378 to 382 of the IPC. It now lives in Sections 303 to 307 of the BNS.
| IPC (old) | BNS (new) | Offence | What changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 378 | 303(1) | Definition of theft | Same text, now a sub-section |
| 379 | 303(2) | Punishment for theft | New community-service proviso; value-based cognizable/bailable split |
| 380 | 305 | Theft in a dwelling, place of worship, or means of transport | Carried over |
| 381 | 306 | Theft by clerk or servant | Carried over |
| 382 | 307 | Theft after preparation to cause death, hurt, or restraint | Carried over |
| (none) | 304 | Snatching | Brand-new offence, no IPC equivalent |
Three real changes are worth internalising. First, community service as a sentencing option for petty first-time theft simply didn’t exist under the IPC. Second, the value-based bifurcation, which now decides whether theft is cognizable and bailable, is new; under the IPC, theft was uniformly cognizable and non-bailable regardless of value. Third, snatching is now a distinct, named offence rather than being squeezed into theft or robbery.
And timing matters. The BNS applies to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. A theft committed before that date is still charged and tried under the IPC, even if the trial runs in 2026. So for any theft case, the date of the offence decides which code governs it. For a sense of how the same reshuffling played out for a related property-and-deception offence, see our breakdown of cheating under Section 318 BNS.
Snatching and aggravated theft: Sections 304 to 307
Not all theft is equal, and the BNS reserves heavier punishment for theft that’s bolder, more invasive, or more dangerous. Four sections do that work.
Snatching (Section 304). Theft becomes snatching when the offender suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizes, grabs, or takes away movable property from a person or their possession. Think of a chain or phone snatched on a moving scooter. Snatching is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine. It sits between ordinary theft (which relies on stealth) and robbery (which uses force or the fear of force), and recognising it as its own offence is one of the genuine innovations of the BNS.
Theft in a dwelling and similar places (Section 305). Theft committed in a building used as a human dwelling, a place of worship, or a means of transport carries a stiffer punishment, up to seven years and a fine, because of the violation of a protected space.
Theft by a clerk or servant (Section 306). Where a clerk or servant steals property in their employer’s possession, the breach of trust pushes the maximum to seven years and a fine.
Theft after preparation to cause death or hurt (Section 307). This is the gravest theft offence. Where the thief has made preparation to cause death, hurt, or restraint in order to commit the theft or escape with the property, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine.
A practical note that ties back to everything above: none of these aggravated forms gets the community-service proviso, and they’re treated as serious, cognizable, non-bailable offences. The ₹5,000 mercy rule is reserved for ordinary, low-value, first-time theft under Section 303(2), and nothing else.
How courts prove theft: dishonest intention and temporary deprivation
What does the prosecution actually have to establish? The mechanical act of moving property is rarely the hard part. The contested ground is almost always the mental element: was there dishonest intention?
The Supreme Court settled how low that threshold sits in K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369. Two cadets took an aircraft on an unauthorised flight. The Court held that to prove dishonest intention, the prosecution doesn’t need to show an intention to cause permanent deprivation, or even an intention to gain personally. A dishonest intention at the moment the property is moved is enough. That principle directly shapes how Section 303 is read today.
The companion point came in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094. A government official removed files from an office, had them used, and returned them the next day. He argued there was no theft because nothing was permanently taken. The Court disagreed: temporary deprivation is still theft, because moving property out of someone’s possession without consent, with dishonest intention, completes the offence even if the item comes back.
Put those together and a clear rule emerges. Permanence is irrelevant; consent and intention are everything. This is why borrowing an item without permission, intending to deprive the owner even briefly, can amount to theft, and why so many real defences are won or lost on whether consent existed and what the accused intended at the moment of taking.
Frequently asked questions
1. What is the punishment for theft under BNS Section 303?
Theft under Section 303(2) is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. A second or subsequent conviction carries rigorous imprisonment of one to five years and a fine. A first-time offender who steals property worth less than ₹5,000 and returns it can be sentenced to community service.
2. How many years of jail can you get for theft under the BNS?
Up to three years for a first ordinary theft. For a repeat offender, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and up to five years, plus a fine.
3. What is the punishment for a second theft?
A second or subsequent conviction under Section 303 attracts a mandatory minimum of one year’s rigorous imprisonment, extending up to five years, along with a fine. The court cannot impose a fine-only sentence for a repeat offence.
4. Who is eligible for community service for theft?
All three conditions must be met: the stolen property is worth less than ₹5,000, the person has no prior conviction under Section 303, and the value or property is returned or restored. Only then can a court order community service instead of jail.
5. What does community service mean as a punishment?
Under the Explanation to Section 23 BNSS, it’s court-ordered work that benefits the community, for which the convict gets no payment. Typical tasks include cleaning public spaces, assisting welfare programmes, or helping at hospitals. The sentencing court fixes the nature and duration.
6. Is theft a cognizable offence under the BNS?
It depends on value. Theft of property worth ₹5,000 or more is cognizable. A first-time theft of property worth less than ₹5,000 is non-cognizable, so the police need a Magistrate’s order under Section 174 BNSS before investigating.
7. Is theft bailable or non-bailable under the BNS?
Theft of property worth ₹5,000 or more is non-bailable, meaning bail is at the court’s discretion. Petty first-time theft below ₹5,000 is bailable, so bail is a matter of right.
8. Can the police register an FIR for theft below ₹5,000?
Not on their own. Because that category is non-cognizable, the police must obtain a Magistrate’s direction under Section 174 BNSS first. An FIR registered without it is liable to be quashed, as the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in a January 2026 sand-theft case.
9. Is theft compoundable under the BNS?
Yes. Under Section 359 BNSS, theft under Section 303(2) can be compounded by the owner of the property stolen, without the court’s permission. A genuine settlement with the owner effectively ends the case.
10. Which court tries a theft case?
Any Magistrate can try theft under Section 303. Where the value of the stolen property does not exceed ₹20,000, the case can be tried summarily under Section 283 BNSS.
11. Is shoplifting theft under the BNS?
Yes. Taking goods from a shop without paying, with dishonest intention, is theft under Section 303. The punishment tier depends on the value of the goods and whether it’s a first offence.
12. What is snatching, and is it the same as theft?
Snatching is a separate offence under Section 304: suddenly or forcibly grabbing movable property from a person. It’s punishable with up to three years and a fine. It differs from ordinary theft, which relies on stealth rather than a sudden grab.
13. Is taking electricity theft under Section 303?
No. Theft of electricity is dealt with under the Electricity Act, 2003, not under Section 303 BNS, because electricity isn’t “movable property” in the ordinary sense the theft provision contemplates.
14. Does theft require permanent deprivation of the owner?
No. The Supreme Court held in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan that even temporary deprivation is theft, as long as the property is moved out of possession without consent and with dishonest intention.
15. When did Section 303 BNS come into force?
The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. It applies to offences committed on or after that date. A theft committed earlier is still tried under the Indian Penal Code.
16. Is stealing a mobile phone bailable under the BNS?
It depends on the phone’s value. If it’s worth ₹5,000 or more, the theft is non-bailable and bail is discretionary. If it’s a first offence and the phone is worth less than ₹5,000, the theft is bailable.
References
Cases
1. K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369. Indian Kanoon
2. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094. Indian Kanoon
3. P. Rashidulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 10465 of 2025 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, January 2026). Indian Kanoon
Statutes
– Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, and 4. India Code
– Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 23, 174, 283, and 359. India Code
– Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 378 to 382. India Code
– Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. India Code
Legal disclaimer
This article is published for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no lawyer-client relationship is created by reading this content. Laws and judicial interpretations change over time. For advice on a specific theft case, consult a qualified advocate.
