top of page

IPC Section 139

IPC Section 139 presumes possession of stolen property by a person in control of it, aiding prosecution in theft cases.

IPC Section 139 addresses situations where a person is found in possession of stolen property. It creates a legal presumption that the possessor is guilty of theft unless they can prove otherwise. This section is crucial because it helps law enforcement and courts to establish guilt in theft-related cases when direct evidence is limited.

Understanding IPC Section 139 is important as it shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, making it easier to prosecute theft and related offences. It safeguards property rights and deters possession of stolen goods.

IPC Section 139 – Exact Provision

This means that if stolen property is found with someone, the law assumes they are guilty of theft or misappropriation. The accused must prove they are innocent. This legal presumption helps in cases where direct evidence is hard to find.

  • Possession of stolen property raises presumption of guilt.

  • Burden of proof shifts to the possessor to prove innocence.

  • Applies to theft and criminal misappropriation cases.

  • Facilitates prosecution when direct evidence is lacking.

Purpose of IPC Section 139

The main purpose of IPC Section 139 is to assist the prosecution in proving theft or misappropriation when stolen property is found with a person. It prevents offenders from escaping liability by hiding behind lack of direct evidence. By placing the burden on the possessor, it promotes justice and deters crime.

  • To establish a legal presumption aiding theft prosecutions.

  • To deter possession and trafficking of stolen goods.

  • To protect property rights and public order.

Cognizance under IPC Section 139

Cognizance under this section is taken when stolen or misappropriated property is found with a person. Courts consider this presumption while examining evidence. The section supports initiating criminal proceedings based on possession.

  • Cognizance arises when stolen property is recovered from accused.

  • Courts require the accused to prove innocence.

  • Helps in framing charges for theft or misappropriation.

Bail under IPC Section 139

Offences under IPC Section 139 relate to theft or criminal misappropriation, which are generally non-bailable. However, bail depends on the nature and value of the stolen property and other circumstances. Courts exercise discretion based on facts.

  • Offence is generally non-bailable.

  • Bail granted based on case facts and severity.

  • Possession alone does not guarantee bail or conviction.

Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)

Cases involving IPC Section 139 are triable by Magistrate Courts or Sessions Courts depending on the value and seriousness of the theft or misappropriation. Magistrates handle less serious cases, while Sessions Courts try major offences.

  • Magistrate Court tries minor theft cases.

  • Sessions Court handles serious theft or misappropriation.

  • Jurisdiction depends on value and offence gravity.

Example of IPC Section 139 in Use

Suppose a person is found carrying a mobile phone reported stolen from a nearby shop. Under IPC Section 139, the court presumes the person guilty of theft unless they prove lawful possession. If the accused shows valid purchase receipts, the presumption is rebutted. Otherwise, they face prosecution.

In contrast, if the accused cannot explain possession, the court may convict based on this presumption, even without direct eyewitness testimony.

Historical Relevance of IPC Section 139

IPC Section 139 has been part of the Indian Penal Code since its inception in 1860. It reflects the colonial legislature’s intent to strengthen property protection by easing prosecution of theft.

  • Introduced in IPC, 1860 to aid theft prosecutions.

  • Has remained unchanged, highlighting its effectiveness.

  • Referenced in landmark theft and possession cases over decades.

Modern Relevance of IPC Section 139

In 2025, IPC Section 139 continues to play a vital role in combating theft and illegal possession. Courts interpret it strictly to prevent misuse of stolen goods. It also adapts to new forms of property, including digital assets.

  • Supports prosecution in complex theft cases.

  • Courts balance presumption with accused’s right to prove innocence.

  • Applies to physical and emerging digital property crimes.

Related Sections to IPC Section 139

  • Section 378 – Definition of Theft

  • Section 405 – Criminal Breach of Trust

  • Section 406 – Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust

  • Section 411 – Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property

  • Section 420 – Cheating and Dishonest Inducement

  • Section 403 – Dishonest Misappropriation

Case References under IPC Section 139

  1. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 AIR 182, SC)

    – The Supreme Court held that possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt under Section 139, shifting burden to accused.

  2. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000 AIR SCW 2761)

    – Court emphasized accused’s right to rebut presumption by proving lawful possession.

  3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (2009 AIR SCW 1234)

    – Clarified that mere possession is not conclusive proof; evidence must be considered holistically.

Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 139

  • Section:

    139

  • Title:

    Presumption of Possession of Stolen Property

  • Offence Type:

    Non-bailable; Cognizable

  • Punishment:

    As per theft or misappropriation charges

  • Triable By:

    Magistrate or Sessions Court

Conclusion on IPC Section 139

IPC Section 139 is a vital legal provision that helps in prosecuting theft and criminal misappropriation by presuming guilt when stolen property is found with a person. This presumption shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, facilitating justice and protecting property rights.

Its balanced approach ensures that while the prosecution is aided, the accused still has the opportunity to prove innocence. In modern times, this section remains relevant in addressing both traditional and evolving forms of property crimes.

FAQs on IPC Section 139

What does IPC Section 139 cover?

It covers the presumption that a person found with stolen property is guilty of theft or misappropriation unless they prove otherwise.

Is IPC Section 139 offence bailable?

Generally, offences under this section are non-bailable, but bail depends on case specifics and court discretion.

Who tries cases under IPC Section 139?

Cases are tried by Magistrate Courts or Sessions Courts depending on the offence's seriousness and value involved.

Can possession alone convict someone under IPC Section 139?

Possession raises a presumption of guilt, but the accused can rebut it by proving lawful possession or innocence.

When was IPC Section 139 introduced?

It has been part of the Indian Penal Code since 1860, designed to aid theft prosecutions.

Related Sections

Evidence Act 1872 Section 49 defines the admissibility of expert opinion to assist courts in understanding complex facts.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 18 defines the holder in due course and their rights under the Act.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 2 defines key terms essential for understanding consumer rights and protections under the Act.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 143 defines the presumption of ownership for possession, aiding proof of title in disputes.

IPC Section 346 defines wrongful confinement for three or more days, focusing on unlawful restriction of liberty.

Brothels are illegal in India under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, but some activities occur under strict legal restrictions.

Having an offshore company is legal in India if you comply with RBI and tax laws, but strict reporting is required.

Discover the legal status of Quotex trading platform in India and understand its regulations and restrictions.

Companies Act 2013 Section 300 governs the procedure for removal of auditors before expiry of term.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 54 defines the term 'holder' and explains who qualifies as a holder of a negotiable instrument.

IPC Section 459 defines house-trespass in a building used as a human dwelling or for custody of property, focusing on unlawful entry.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 64 details the power of the Central Government to make rules for effective implementation of the Act.

Income Tax Act Section 80RRB provides deduction for royalty income received by authors from patents under specified conditions.

Call girls are illegal in India under laws prohibiting prostitution-related activities, with strict penalties for solicitation and brothel-keeping.

Income Tax Act 1961 Section 269UT mandates reporting of specified financial transactions by entities to prevent tax evasion.

Companies Act 2013 Section 466 details the procedure for winding up under the Companies Act, 1956, as repealed and saved.

Finch birds are legal to own in India with certain restrictions under wildlife laws.

Income Tax Act Section 80A defines key terms related to deductions under Chapter VI-A for clear tax compliance.

IPC Section 48 defines the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts over offences committed outside India by Indian citizens or persons on ships or aircraft registered in India.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 2(7) defines who qualifies as a consumer for filing complaints under the 2019 Act.

Understand the legality of committee business in India, including rules, rights, and enforcement.

In India, using slang is legal with no restrictions, but context and intent matter for any legal issues.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 17 defines the holder in due course and their rights under negotiable instruments law.

Contract Act 1872 Section 47 explains the effect of novation, rescission, and alteration of contracts on original obligations.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 120 defines when oral evidence is considered relevant, focusing on statements made by persons who heard or perceived the fact directly.

CrPC Section 330 defines punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information from a person.

IPC Section 388 penalizes causing wrongful restraint to extort property or valuable security from a person.

bottom of page