Section 314 BNS: Dishonest Misappropriation of Property

Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the crime of someone dishonestly taking movable property for their own use or converting it to their benefit. This offence is punishable with imprisonment ranging from at least six months up to two years and also includes a fine. The minimum punishment is a new addition made in BNS. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 314 BNS: Dishonest Misappropriation of Property

Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine.

Illustrations:

1. A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith believing at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
2. A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
3. A and B, being joint owners of a horse. A takes the horse out of B’s possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 1: A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.

Illustration: A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z, bearing a blank endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security for a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. A has committed an offence under this section.

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.

Illustrations:

1. A finds a rupee on the high road, not knowing to whom the rupee belongs, A picks up the rupee. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.
2. A finds a letter on the road, containing a bank note. From the direction and contents of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
3. A finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has lost the cheque. But the name of the person, who has drawn the cheque, appears. A knows that this person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A appropriates the cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence under this section.
4. A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse with the intention of restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence under this section.
5. A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
6. A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

Note: “The information provided under Section 314 BNS has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”

Download Free PDF on Section 314 BNS 2023 PDF

Section 314 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 criminalizes the act of "dishonest misappropriation of property," focusing on movable property. This section targets individuals who, with a dishonest intention, take possession of movable property that doesn't belong to them and then proceed to use that property as if it were their own. The "dishonest intention" is the most important element in section 314 of BNS, it implies a deliberate act aimed at causing wrongful loss to the actual owner and securing wrongful gain for the person taking the property. 

Section 314 BNS prescribes a punishment for this offence, which includes a minimum imprisonment term of six months, but this can extend up to two years, depending on the case, along with a fine.

Section 314 BNS: Essential Elements

For an offence to be punishable under Section 314 BNS 2023 certain important elements must be present. Mentioned hereinafter are some of the important elements:

• Movable Property: 

Section 314 BNS applies only when the property involved is something that can be moved, like goods, money, or vehicles. It does not cover land or buildings.

• Dishonest Misappropriation or Conversion: 

For this offence to have occurred, the person must have dishonestly taken the movable property for a wrong purpose or used it in a way they weren't allowed to. Alternatively, they might have treated the property as their own and used it for their advantage without having the right to do so.

• Dishonest Intention: 

The act of misusing or taking the property must have been done with a dishonest intention under Section 314 BNS. This means the person intended to cause someone else to lose something they were entitled to or intended to gain something for themselves that they weren't entitled to.

• Possession: 

The person who ended up misappropriating the property under Section 314 BNS might have initially come into possession of it legally or without any bad intentions. This is different from stealing, where the person has the intention to take it wrongly right from the start.

• Temporary Misappropriation: 

Even if the person only intends to misappropriate the property for a short period, it still counts as an offence under Section 314 of BNS, as long as their intentions are dishonest. They don't have to intend to keep it forever.

• Finding Lost Property: 

If someone finds a property that doesn't seem to belong to anyone and picks it up to keep it safe or tries to return it, that's not considered dishonest. However, if they decide to keep it for themselves when they know who the owner is or could easily find them, or if they don't try to find the owner for a reasonable time, then their actions become an offence under Section 314 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 314 BNS essentially retains the core of Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, with changes being done in the punishment in the main definition:

Section 314 BNS: Judicial Interpretation

Judicial interpretation of Section 314 BNS by Indian courts has been an outlining factor in determining the ambit of section 314 of BNS, mentioned hereinafter are some of the landmark judgments :

• Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1965)

The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed whether a partner could be held liable for dishonest misappropriation of firm property. The court ruled that, generally, co-owners or partners cannot be convicted under Section 403 IPC for using or possessing joint property. The exception arises only when there is a clear act of dishonest appropriation or conversion of the property to one's use after the firm's dissolution or if there is a breach of trust involved. The established legal principle under now Section 314 BNS is that mere possession or utilization of shared property by a partner does not automatically amount to misappropriation unless there is explicit evidence of dishonest intent in converting that property for personal gain in violation of the partnership agreement or after the partnership has ended.

• State vs Ramesh Kumar @ Nikku @ Tedhi (2012)

The accused was tried for the murder and robbery of a TSR driver. Key prosecution witnesses failed to identify the accused as the assailant. However, the accused admitted to selling the deceased's mobile phone, claiming he found it. The court acquitted the accused of murder and robbery due to lack of conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, the court convicted him under Section 403 IPC now Section 314 BNS (dishonest misappropriation of property) for possessing and selling the deceased's phone, despite not being charged under that section, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment, with credit for time served, and ordered the phone returned to the deceased's widow.

• Sheoprasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh (2001)

The petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 403 IPC, now Section 314 BNS, based on an anonymous letter alleging he possessed stolen money. The Chhattisgarh High Court, finding the investigation by Head Constable Dhruv Kumar Sharma to be severely flawed, lacking credible evidence of theft or dishonest misappropriation, and noting the absence of any complaint of lost property, held that for an offence under Section 403 IPC, now Section 314 of BNS, it must be shown that the property belonged to a third party and was dishonestly misappropriated or converted by the accused for their own use. As there was no evidence the seized money belonged to anyone else, the court quashed the proceedings under Section 403 IPC, now Section 314 BNS. 

Conclusion

Section 314 of the BNS protects ownership rights over movable property. It addresses scenarios where a person dishonestly misappropriates or converts property for their own use without legal claim or consent. The offence under Section 314 BNS is different from theft and criminal breach of trust, as it typically involves wrongful retention or use of property already in the accused's possession, rather than taking it through trespass or violating an entrustment.

Through judicial interpretation (under Section 403 IPC equivalent), courts have made it clear that the essence of the offence lies in the dishonest intention, not merely in physical possession or temporary use. Thus, Section 314 serves to penalize a breach of moral and legal obligation to respect others' property and reinforces accountability in both personal and official domains.