Yes, on the logical level, the quoted passage is redundant: for the reason you indicate, either "a reader does not steal" or "a thief does not read" suffices by itself -- at least if stealing a book one time makes you a thief (as opposed to thieves' being defined as people who steal habitually).
Profound or contrapositive [1]?
P = reader
Q = not steal
not P = does not read
not Q = Theif
P - > Q
not Q - > not P
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition