What is meant by the term 'Dishonesty' in the Indian Penal Code?

The Statutory Definition: Section 24 IPC and Section 27 BNS

Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defined the term in clear, unambiguous terms:

"Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly."

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has carried this definition forward as Section 27, rephrasing it slightly to read: "dishonestly means doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person." As the Ratanlal & Dhirajlal commentary on the BNS records, although the provision is rephrased, there is no material change in the effect of the operation of the definition. The substance remains identical — the legislature, in overhauling the entire criminal code, found no reason to disturb what had been settled for over 160 years.

The Technical Meaning: What the Definition Actually Says

The most important thing to grasp about this definition is what it does not say. It does not say that a person acts dishonestly when he deceives another. It does not say he acts dishonestly when he lies, or acts in bad faith, or harbours moral turpitude. The definition is far more precise. A person acts dishonestly if, and only if, his intention is to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.

This was authoritatively stated by the Supreme Court in S. Dutt v. State of UP (AIR 1966 SC 523), where the Court said plainly that a person who does anything with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that dishonestly. Two propositions emerge from this that are critical for a student to internalise.

First, deceit is not an ingredient of the definition. The Ratanlal & Dhirajlal commentary records this emphatically: "Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word dishonestly. Dishonestly involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss." One can act dishonestly without uttering a single false word. Equally, one can tell elaborate lies and yet not act dishonestly in the legal sense, if those lies cause neither wrongful gain nor wrongful loss. The Supreme Court in Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1997 SC 3424) demonstrated this: the delivery of forged letters that caused no wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another could not be said to have been done dishonestly, and the charge of forgery failed accordingly.

Second, dishonesty is inherently tied to property. The intention must be to cause wrongful gain or loss of property. The term "dishonestly" is, by design, a property-related concept. It governs offences where someone's economic or pecuniary interests are at stake. Offences where the accused merely intended to harm a person's dignity, or deceive someone without causing property loss, do not attract the definition.

The Inseparable Link with Wrongful Gain and Wrongful Loss

To understand dishonesty under the Code, one must always read it together with the definitions of wrongful gain and wrongful loss — now Sections 236 to 238 of the BNS (formerly a single Section 23 of the IPC). Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Crucially, "gaining wrongfully" includes both acquiring wrongfully and retaining wrongfully, just as "losing wrongfully" includes both being deprived of and being kept out of property.

This framework significantly broadens the reach of dishonesty. When these provisions are read together, a person can be said to have acted dishonestly even if the gain or loss is temporary. The Supreme Court in KN Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1957 SC 369) settled this without ambiguity: "The gain or loss contemplated need not be a total acquisition or a total deprivation but it is enough if it is a temporary retention of property by the person wrongfully gaining or a temporary keeping out of property from the person legally entitled." The cadet who flew a military aircraft to Pakistan without authorisation, returning it days later, was held to have acted dishonestly because he temporarily deprived the government of its legitimate use of the aircraft. This fundamental departure from the English law of larceny — which required permanent deprivation — is a defining feature of the Indian approach.

Need Not Be Both: Wrongful Gain or Wrongful Loss

A common misconception is that dishonesty requires proof of both wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the victim. The law does not demand this. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court settled the question definitively in Kotamraju Venkatrayadu v. Emperor (ILR 1905 28 Mad 90), holding that a person does a thing dishonestly who does it with the intention of causing wrongful gain or loss — it is not necessary that there should be any intention to cause both. An intention to cause only wrongful loss to the victim, without any gain to the accused, is sufficient. The definition requires either, not both.

How the Courts Determine Dishonest Intention

Dishonest intention is, by its nature, a mental state — invisible to the naked eye. The law therefore draws inferences from external conduct. The test, as crystallised in Queen Empress v. Girdhari Lal (1886 ILR All 653), is not the test of a hypothetical reasonable man, but rather the test of the person whose intention is to be read. The court must put itself as far as possible in the accused's situation, taking into account his habits of life, manner of thought, associations and beliefs. The sole question is: what was the actual intention of this particular person at the time of the act?

A dishonest intention may be presumed only if an unlawful act is done, or if a lawful act is done by unlawful means. A mere erroneous belief, or persistence in a wrong opinion, cannot be said to be an act tainted with dishonest intent. This principle has consistently protected those who act under genuine, even if mistaken, belief of right.

Dishonesty Distinguished from Negligence

These two states of mind occupy, as the BNS commentary expressly puts it, "two sides of the pole." Negligence is an unintentional failure to take reasonable care. Dishonesty, as defined, is an intentional act directed at causing wrongful gain or loss. Presence of mens rea and negligence normally never go together — one excludes the other. Therefore, one who is negligent cannot be charged with dishonesty. The Patna High Court in TR Arya v. State of Punjab (1987 CrLJ 222) confirmed this principle. A contractor who carelessly handles public funds may be civilly liable for his negligence, but cannot be convicted of criminal breach of trust for dishonesty unless the prosecution establishes that his intention was to cause wrongful gain or loss — not merely that he was careless.

Dishonesty Distinguished from Fraudulently

The IPC and the BNS use both these terms — sometimes together, sometimes independently — in defining various offences. They are related but distinct. Dishonesty, as seen, requires an intention to cause wrongful gain or loss; deceit is not essential. Fraudulently, defined in Section 25 IPC (Section 29 BNS) as acting with the intention to defraud, necessarily involves an element of deceit. In Dr Vimla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1963 SC 1572), the Supreme Court observed that dishonestly involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss, whereas an act done fraudulently requires deceit and may encompass non-economic injury as well.

The practical consequence is significant. Where a person acts with deceit but causes no property loss — no wrongful gain, no wrongful loss — his act is neither dishonest nor fraudulent in the legal sense. Where a person secretly and without deception takes another's property intending to permanently deprive him, his act is dishonest without being fraudulent. The two overlap, but neither subsumes the other.

The Pervasive Role of Dishonesty across Offences

It is worth pausing to appreciate just how central this one definition is to the architecture of property offences. Consider what falls away if dishonesty cannot be established:

In theft (Section 378 IPC / Section 303 BNS), the entire offence requires that the taking be dishonest. Illustration (i) to Section 378 makes this vivid: a man who enters a jeweller's shop and forcibly takes back his own watch — which the jeweller is lawfully holding as security for a debt — has not committed theft, because he did not act dishonestly. He had no intention of causing wrongful gain or loss; he believed he was reclaiming what was his. The trespass and assault may found other charges, but the element of dishonesty is absent.

In criminal misappropriation (Section 403 IPC / Section 314 BNS), the offence requires dishonest misappropriation. Illustration (a) to Section 403 teaches a subtle but crucial lesson: A takes Z's property honestly believing it to be his own — no offence. But the moment A discovers his mistake and decides to keep the property, dishonesty comes into existence then and there. The mental transformation from honest belief to conscious retention of another's property is the moment of criminality.

In criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC / Section 316 BNS), the element of dishonest misappropriation is the very soul of the offence. The principal ingredient, as the Supreme Court stated in JM Desai v. State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 889), is dishonest misappropriation. Mere failure to account for property, without proof of dishonest intention, is not sufficient for conviction in all cases — though where the accused renders a demonstrably false explanation, an inference of dishonest intent may readily be drawn.

In cheating (Section 415 IPC / Section 318 BNS), two main ingredients are dishonest and fraudulent intention. For the purpose of establishing cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation — not merely at the time the breach occurred. This distinction between a dishonest intention formed at inception and a subsequent breach of contract has saved many an accused from criminal liability. As the illustration to Section 415 records: if A genuinely intends to deliver indigo but later fails, he is not guilty of cheating; he is liable only civilly. But if he never intended to deliver, and took the money knowing this, his act at its inception was dishonest.

A Concrete Illustration: The Jeweller's Watch

The illustrations appended to the definition of theft serve as enduring teaching tools for dishonesty as well. Consider illustration (j) to Section 378: A owes money to Z for repairing A's watch. Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt. A takes the watch out of Z's possession without consent, intending to deprive Z of it as a security. A commits theft because he acts dishonestly — he causes wrongful loss to Z, who is being deprived of the property that secures his claim, and wrongful gain to himself. The watch is A's own property. Yet because his intention is to cause wrongful loss to Z, his act is entirely dishonest within Section 24.

Contrast this with illustration (p): A, in good faith believing property belonging to Z to be his own, takes that property out of B's possession. A does not commit theft because he does not act dishonestly — there is no intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; there is only honest, if mistaken, belief of entitlement.

The contrast between these two illustrations captures the entire essence of dishonesty under Indian criminal law: it is not about what one does, but about why one does it — specifically, whether the purpose is to achieve or inflict a gain or loss that the law pronounces unlawful.