410.

Stolen Property, IPC

Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and
property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which [***] criminal breach of trust
has been committed, is designed as "stolen property", [whether the transfer has been made, or the
misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without [India]]. But, if such property
subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then
ceases to be stolen property.

Scope of section 410- This section defines 'stolen property i.e.:

(a) the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, or

(b) which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been
committed, is 'stolen property.

Ingredients section 410-

a) Property- the property word here denotes moveable property. Abandoned property does not come
within the purview of this section. The definition here follows a substantive offence of theft i.e.
the dishonest taking of property out of the possession of any person, so this offence is the receipt
of property, the possession of which has been transferred by theft and the other allied offences.

Res Nullis (property of no person)- a person may abandon his property. People brand a
bullock and let it loose. No theft can be committed in respect of such properties- Tan Sonly v.
Burman Oul Co.

b) "Possession" -is used here in its largest sense implying custody or control, whether temporary or
permanent, or exclusive of or jointly with the thief. Manual possession is not necessary. It may be
actual or constructive. Property recovered from a place open to all.As stated above mere
recovery of article on the pointing of an accused does not prove his exclusive possession. This is
more so when an article is recovered from an open place. When an article is recovered from a
place accessible to all there is no presumption of exclusive possession of the accusedTrimbak v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh.

c) Possession must have been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal

misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust- theft -section 378 defines theft as-
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft.

d) "Possession whereof has been transferred" This does not mean that the receiver should receive
directly from the theft. All it implies is that the receiver should receive property which has been
obtained by theft. The expression the possession whereof has been transferred does not mean
that the receiver should receive directly from the thief only the reception of such property is
important. Nor does it imply that there should be knowledge as to who was the thief or from
whom the possession was transferred earlier. "Whether the transfer has been made, etc.", i.e.,
 whether the substantive offence of theft or the subsidiary offence of receiving was committed
within or without India.

e) A property stolen ceases to possess its character when such property subsequently comes
into the possession, which may be actual or constructive, of the person legally entitled to it. An
owner may commit theft of his own property, so he may be also in possession of stolen property
which is his own. Thus, the possession of a misappropriate is not ab initio wrongful. It becomes
wrongful only with the change of intention. Consequently, legal possession of property may, with
the change of intention, be converted into stolen property.
As for instance in the case of Kishan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, four thieves stole goods from
the custody of a railway company and sent them by a parcel in the same companys line addressed
to the accused. During the transit, the theft was discovered, and on the arrival of the parcel at the
station for delivery, a policeman in the service of the company opened it, and then returned it to
the porter, who was under the duty to deliver it, under instructions to keep it till further order.

On the next day, the policeman ordered the porter to take it to address, where it was received by
the accused. The police thereafter got hold of him. The court held that the goods had reached its
lawful owner, the railway company, so that it could no longer be called stolen goods and thus, the
receipt of it could in no way be receipt of stolen property.

Character of property into which stolen property is converted .If the stolen property is
articles of gold or silver or some other metal and after it is s tolen the article is melted it does
not cease to be stolen property.Public Prosecutor v. I.C. Lingiah. The accused committed an
offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of a o n e t h o u s a n d r u p e e n o t e H e c h a n g e d
t h e n o t e i n t o n o t e s o f s m a l l e r denomination. These notes were held to be stolen property.
Sugnomal Bhajraj v. Emperor . But if the stolen property is sold the money received for it
would not be stolen property.Ram Narayan v. Central Bank of India.

411 Dishonestly receiving stolen property -Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property has been
made punishable under this section. The section states that whoever either dishonestly receives or
dishonestly retains any stolen property with the knowledge that the same is stolen property or having
reason to believe that the same is stolen property, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Scope section 411- The preceding section explains as to what 'stolen property' is. This section prescribes
punishment for a person who dishonestly receives, or dishonestly retains, any stolen property, knowing,
or having reason to believe, the same to be stolen property. To constitute an offence under this section: (a)
the stolen property must be found in possession of the accused: (b) some person, other than the accused,
must possess that property before the accused got possession of the same: and (c) the accused must
dishonestly receive it, or must dishonestly retain it, knowing, or having reason to believe, that the said
property is stolen property.The offence under this section is cognizable, warrant case, non- bailable ,
compoundable by the owner of the property stolen and triable by any magistrate.

Ingredients of Section 411. Held in Sabitri Sharma v. State. Section 411 can be divided into two
parts- whoever dishonestly receives stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that the
property is stolen. (2) Whoever dishonestly retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to
believe that the property is stolen.
The main ingredients of this section are

(1) the property must be stolen- a sine qua non for offence under section 411- it is elementary for
an offence under section 411 of IPC that the property which is the subject shall be a stolen property
as provided by section 410. Only such property the possession has been transferred by theft,
extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust shall be a stolen property

(2) it must be received or retained by any person- this implies to possession- Possession -
Possession is acquired whenever two elements of the corpus and animus come into co-existence. Salmond
defines the possession of the material object as the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of
it. A person is said to be in possession of a thing when the facts of the case are such as to create a
reasonable guarantee of the use of it- Sada Shiv Daulat v. State.

The word possession implies a physical capacity to deal with the thing as we like to the exclusion of
every one and a determination to exercise that physical power on ones own behalf. The word
possession in this connection obviously means conscious possession, for any other possession could not
be taken into account in charging person with criminal liability. As has been expressly provided for in
Section 411 such person must be both dishonest and with knowledge of or belief in the stolen character of
the property.
A person receives stolen property by acquiring or taking manual possession of it. Physical possession, ho
wever is not always required. Under some statutes , it is sufficient if the accused has exercised
control over the property. For example, astatute may declare that paying for the property constitutes contr
ol, regardless of whether the accused has handled it.

An accused can be said to have committed the offence of receiving stolen property in respect of only the
property recovered from him. The fact that the rest of the property stolen has not been recovered from
him does not affect his liability. Mere knowledge as to the whereabouts of the stolen property will not
make any person liable under Section 411.

A man has not the possession of that the existence of which he is unaware of. Possession implies
dominion and consciousness in the mind of the person having domination over an object that he has it and
that he can exercise it. Possession must be conscious and intelligible possession and not merely the
physical presence of the accused in proximity or even in close proximity to the object in re: Satya Narain.

Possession should be exclusive.for conviction under Section 411 the possession of the accused must
be exclusive. Where a stolen property is recovered from the house of the women who were living jointly
with their husbands, their possession is not exclusive and they cannot be convicted under Section 411.
Where the property is recovered from an unfenced compound accessible to all, accused cannot he held
guilty under Section 411. Where stolen property is recovered from an open verandah in joint possession
of the two accused persons, one cannot be convicted under Section 411 unless there is something more to
show the conscious possession of the accused. Where the premises are in possession of the joint family,
unless the evidence shows the exclusive possession of the accused, possession of the stolen property
recovered from the premises cannot be attributed to the accused.

(3) Knowing or having reason to believe that the property is stolen - The accused received or
retained knowing or having reason to believe- the word knowledge has been defined as The difference
between knowledge and belief is nothing more than in the degree of certainty. With regard to things
which make not a very deep impression on the memory, it may be called belief. Knowledge is
nothing more than a mans firm belief. As in the blacks law dictionary. The word 'knowledge' means a
'mental cognition' and not necessarily a 'visual perception'. It implies a notice to the receiver of such facts
as could not but have led him to believe that the property was stolen and could not but have been
dishonestly obtained.

The word 'believes' is much st ronger than the word 'suspect' and involves the necessity of showing that
the circumstances were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind that the property
with which he was dealing was stolen property. It lies on the prosecution to prove the presence of certain
facts from which the accused can be said to have drawn the inevitable conclusion that the property was
stolen property. It may be sufficient to show that the circumstances were such as to make him believe that
the property was stolen.

It is not sufficient to show that the accused was careless or that he had reason to suspect that the property
was stolen one, or that he did not make sufficient enquiry to ascertain whether the property had been
honestly acquired. The circumstance that the accused purchased the Property for adequate as a bona fide
purchaser disproves that there were reasons for him to believe that the property was stolen property.
Abdur Rehman v.Emperor.

Knowledge is generally proved by the circumstances of each case i.e. it is a question of fact. For example
unexplained possession of goods that were recently stolen raises a presumption that the possessor received
them illegally.

In order to be guilty, the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of the property. The crime is committe
d even if thereceiver intends to obtain a reward for returning the property because she has gained a benefit
from depriving the owner of possession, even temporarily.

(4) Receiving or retaining stolen property should be dishonest stolen property knowing it to be
stolen will not constitute an offence under Section 411, 1PC. It is only dishonest reception or retention of
stolen property that constitutes an offence under Section 411, IPC.

Illustration- When, hire-purchase agreement has been duly entered into between the parties, and purchaser
does not pay the instalment due, and the seller takes possession of vehicle there is no dishonest intention
and an offence under Section 411 will not be made out. Some thieves stole some bullock. They took them
to a distant village and left them with the professional grazer of that village for grazing with other cattle.
There is no dishonest possession of the grazer and so he cannot be held guilty under Section 411, IPC.
The accused were engaged to collect arms and explosive substances. They were found in possession of a
stolen revolver. The theft about the revolver was committed long ago. It was held that the accused were
guilty of an offence under Section 411, IPC.

Retains dishonestly.The offence of dishonest retention of property is almost contemporaneous with

the offence of dishonestly receiving it. A man who dishonestly receives property if he retains it must
obviously continue dishonestly to retain it. It would be different, however, if the reception of the property
was innocent. In such cases the burden would be on the prosecution to show at what stage the guilty
knowledge of the receiver supervened to make the retention dishonest. Doubtless there is a real
distinction between receipt and detention. In some instances the receipt of property may be honest but
subsequently when the offender comes to know that the property is stolen property and continues to be in
possession of it he may be said to retain the property knowing it to be stolen.Rama Jena v. State.
The word 'dishonestly', as is used in this section, does not carry its ordinary meaning. It is a
technical term which has been expressly defined in s 24, IPC. A person can be said to have
dishonest intention if in taking the property, it is his intention to cause gain, by unlawful means, of
the property to which the person so gaining is not legally entitled, or to cause loss, by unlawful
means, of property to which the person so losing is legally entitled. 'Dishonestly' involves the twin
ingredients of 'intention' and 'dishonestly'. 'Dishonestly' again involves intention, ie, the doing of a
thing with an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The intention of a person who
takes a thing, is not dishonest unless it is with the intention to cause either such gain or loss as is
provided in s 24. A person cannot be convicted of theft of a property unless it has been found, as a
matter of fact, that he is not entitled to it. Dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under
section 411. This intention is known as animus furandi and without it the offence is not complete.

(5) Somebody else was in possession of the property before it came in possession of the
accused. Dishonestly receives or retains, clarifies, that possession has passed on from some other person
to accused and he was in possession of property.Bighannraj Tripathy v. State of Orissa.

Conviction of principal offender was not a prerequisite to conviction of receiver of stolen property. A-1,
A-2 and A-4 were involved in offence of criminal breach of trust and funds transferred to account of A-3
fall within definition of stolen property.A-3 was aquitted of offence under section 411, IPC since he had
dishonestly received stolen property.Mir Naqvi Askari v. CBI

ILLUSTRATION- It has been held that the person who have the key of almirah or room from which the
article is recovered must be deemed to be in possession of almirah or room.Radha Krishna v. State of
U.P. This rule cannot be said to be absolute. If many persons live in a room which is locked when none is
there no responsibility can be attached to one only because he happens to possess the key when the police
searches the house. It may be possible that the other inmate may have placed the suspicious article in the
house without it being in the knowledge of the person having the key at the time of the search.

PUNISHMENT- The punishment provided for recevining or retaining stolen property dishonestly is
simple or rigorous imprisonment for not more than 3 yrs, or fine or both. There might be awarding to
lessor punishment in special circumstances. Accused was receiving stolen articles from accused No. 1
though knowing to be stolen. But they were not of much value. Sentence was reduced by imposing
sentence of period already undergone by them which was more than three months- State v. Lalaram.
Where the alleged offence had taken place almost 19 years back accused was only 27-28 years of age on
the date of alleged offence. He had already suffered imprisonment for a period of about 9 months. He was
granted exemption from surrendering by order of Court. As such sentence of rigorous imprisonment was
reduced to period already undergone. Ram Kalvan v. State of Rajasthan.

Defenses
-An honest, although mistaken, belief that property is not stolen is a defense to the crime of receiving stol
en property.Intoxication is another defense, but the intoxication must be severe enough to prevent any kno
wledge that the property was stolen. Infancy and insanity are also good defenses.
JURISDICTION - A charge of receiving stolen property may be inquired into, or tried by a court within
whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person
who received, or retained, it, knowing, or having reason to believe, it to be stolen property. Where
property was found to have been stolen at patna and the offence of receiving stolen property was
committed at Calcutta, it was held that the Patna court had jurisdiction in respect of the section 411.
 RECENT JUDGEMENTS

State. Vs. Jitender Chauhan @ Jeetu.

Facts -
1 On 17/02/2012, one motorcycle bearing no. DL-4S-BD-2261 was got recovered at the instance of accused
Jitender Chauhan @ Jeetu from the back side of D Block Market, Prashant Vihar, opposite King Saloon,
which was dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen
property, belonging to complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Vijay Kumar, the theft of which took place in
the intervening night of 15-16/02./2012 between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. from gali no. 5, in front of House no.
254, Ambedkar Nagar, Haider Pur, Delhi. Accused was arrested and upon completion of investigation,
challan was prepared u/s 392/394/411/34 IPC and filed in court for trial.
Charge for offence U/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused on 16.02.2013 to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial and the case was adjourned for recording of prosecution evidence.
2 Prosecution examined the witnesses
HC Shiv Kumar deposed that on 17-02-2012, after receiving the secret information by the secret
informer, at about 3.45 p.m. he along with SI Anil Malik, HC Vijender, Sanjay, Ramesh, Anil, and secret
informer were present at Pocket-7, Sector-2, Rohini. At about 4.15 p.m., one person came from the side
of Jaipur Golden Hospital on red colour pulsar bearing no.DL4SBN8685.
instance of secret informer, they apprehended Jitu Chauhan. They asked him to produce the documents of
motorcycle but he did not produce any ownership document.
After that he seized the motorcycle bearing no. DL 4SBN 8685 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. On the
instance of accused Jitu Chauhan one more motorcycle make pulsar bearing no. DL 4SBD 2261 was
recovered from D Block Market, Prashant Vihar, Opp. King Saloon, Delhi. He further deposed that
thereafter he seized the motorcycle bearing no. DL 4SBD 2261 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.
Thereafter he informed the DO regarding the recovery of the said motorcycle.
3 The main eye witness i.e. complainant namely Vinod Kumar on whose statement the complaint was
registered, is not traceable. The summonses were sent to him through DCP but in vain. The remaining
examined or unexamined witnesses are either police officials or formal witness who are not
complainant and cannot prove theft of the motorcycle.
4 The prosecution was under bounden duty to prove the fact of theft at the outset and also that the property
stolen is the same property which is allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. Only the
complainant could prove the fact that the same property was stolen from his possession but the
complainant has remained untraceable. The original complaint remains not proved. In absence of
complainant, the basic ingredient of the case remains unproved. The fact of theft and stolen property
remains unestablished and as such the factum of alleged recovery of a property from accused has no
meaning.

In the light of above discussion and observations, the accused Jitender Chauhan @ Jeetu is hereby
acquitted for the offences u/s 411 IPC in the present case. Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement on the same.

Ashwani kumar v. State the case was regarding stolen cyclinders and it was trialed under Section
410 and 411 which deals with stolen proper transferred by theft, extortion, robbery or the property
which is the subject matter of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust.

The facts of the case were:

 On 08.01.1999 the complainant Arun Mahajan along with his wife had gone out to work. At about 04:30
PM he received a telephone call from his wife, who had already returned home back. He was informed
that in their absence somebody had come in their house and took away the LPG cylinder on the pretext
of checking the same as it was defective. At that time only their children namely Manish and Ashish
were in the house. FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered on the same day.

On 11.03.1999 the accused Anil Kumar (who has already passed away) was arrested in case
FIR under sections 380/411 IPC and he made a disclosure about his involvement in this case. The
accused Anil disclosed that he had stolen the LPG gas cylinder from the house of the complainant and
sold it to the co-accused Ashwani at the residential address of the latter. Accused Anil pointed out the
place from where he had stolen the gas cylinder and pointing out memo. The stolen cylinder was
recovered from the residence of the accused Ashwani. The accused Ashwani was also arrested in this
case. It is on these allegation that the accused is facing trial.

The four prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows:

1.) Arun Mahajan, the complainant;

2.) HC Raza Ali, duty officer, who exhibited on record FIR Ex.PW1/A;

3.) SI Sanwar Mal, recovery witness;

4.) HC Hukminder, another recovery witness.

The complainant was examined by the prosecution. During the course of his testimony, a gas cylinder
was produced and he identified the same to be gas cylinder that had been stolen from his house.

From the testimony of the Arun Mahajan, it is abundantly clear that he was not at all sure about the
identity of the case property. He stated that he would not be able to identify his Indane gas cylinder if
the same was mixed with other Indane gas cylinders. He also said that the gas cylinder had no
identification mark and therefore there was no basis on which he could identify it. Furthermore, as per
his testimony the cylinders are same and therefore it is difficult to identify.

HC Hukminder deposed that subsequent to the disclosure of the accused Anil Kumar, they reached B1,
JJ Colony Wazirpur, Delhi and three gas cylinders were recovered at the instance of the accused Anil
from the shop of the accused Ashwani. He further deposed that all the three cylinders were seized. He
testified in his cross examination that all the three recovered gas cylinders were of Indane company and
there was no identification mark on any of them. He further admitted that he could not tell as to towards
which case the gas cylinder in question pertained to. Therefore, from the testimony of Hukminder it is
clear that the identity of the case property is highly doubtful.

The prosecution has completely failed to establish the identity of the stolen property. The prosecution
has also failed to establish that the gas cylinder Ex. P1 that was produced in the court was the same gas
cylinder that was stolen from the house of the complainant.

In view of the foregoing discussion, accused Ashwani is therefore entitled to be acquitted. It is ordered
accordingly.