Only the person who actually commits the raid or theft can be punished.

Anyone who later knowingly receives or keeps the stolen property can also be punished under this section, even without taking part in the original offence.

If you didn't know for certain the goods were stolen, you're automatically safe.

The law requires 'knowledge' that the property was taken in such an offence; courts assess this based on surrounding facts and circumstances, not just the accused's claim of ignorance.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 155

Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in sections 153 and 154

Whoever receives any property knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in sections 153 and 154, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and to forfeiture of the property so received.§

Why this exists

Sections 153 and 154 punish those who organize or take part in plundering or raiding the territory of a foreign country that is at peace with India, since such acts can drag India into international conflict or violate treaties. Section 155 closes a gap: even if a person did not personally take part in the raid, knowingly receiving or benefiting from the loot makes them complicit. This discourages a black market for goods stolen during such unlawful depredations and reinforces India's international obligations to prevent its territory or citizens from being used to attack peaceful neighboring states.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Only the person who actually commits the raid or theft can be punished.
Fact: Anyone who later knowingly receives or keeps the stolen property can also be punished under this section, even without taking part in the original offence.
Myth: If you didn't know for certain the goods were stolen, you're automatically safe.
Fact: The law requires 'knowledge' that the property was taken in such an offence; courts assess this based on surrounding facts and circumstances, not just the accused's claim of ignorance.