You are on page 1of 54

Offence against property finds a prominent

place in the penal code, the basic elements


common to the offences under this chapter is
Dishonestly, which the code describes as the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another but the
manner in which dishonestly is exercised differs
in different cases. Whoever does anything with
the intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss or another person is
said to do that thing dishonestly.
the offences which effects or harm to the
public property is considered as offence
against property
The basic element common to the offences
under this chapter is dishonesty which the code
describes as the intention of causing wrongful
gain to on e person to wrongful loss to another.
A stage is however reached when violations of
property rights become so violent, mischievous
of fraudulent that the state finds it necessary to
step in an utilize the machinery for its criminal
law to afford protection to property in a speedy
and effective way
For this it has divide into 10 heads (a) theft
(b)extortion (c)Robbery and dacoity
(d)criminal misappropriation of property (e)
Criminal breach of trust (f) Receiving stolen
property (g) Cheating (h) Fraudulent disposal
of property (i)Mischief (j)Criminal trespass.
OF THEFT (Section 378-382)
Section 378 says that whoever intended to take
dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that persons
consent moves that property in order to such
taking is said to commit theft. For instance- A
finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the
house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Zs
possession, and if a dishonestly removes it, A
commits theft. This section defines theft and
next section prescribes punishment thereof. In
order to constitute the offence of theft, there
must exist following ingredients
a) The accused must have an intention to taking
dishonestly;
Note- The word dishonestly means as is used in this
section, does not carry its ordinary meaning it is a
technical term which has been expressly defined in
section 24 of IPC itself. A person can be said to have
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 persons so
gaining is not legally entitles or to cause loss by
unlawfully means of property to which the person so
losing is legally entitled
A person may be the guilty of theft of his own
property if he takes it dishonestly from other
see ills. (j) and (k). where the accused took a
bundle belonging to himself which was in the
possession f a police constable and for which
the constable was accountable it was held that
he constable had special property in it and that
therefore the accused was guilty of theft. There
is no presumption of law that husband a wife
constitute one person in India for the purpose of
criminal law
b)The subject of the theft must be some
moveable property.
Explanation- if a person takes anything of
another dishonestly in his possession by moving
it then only it is theft if it is not attached to the
land, if a sale of trees belonging to tree others
and not cut down at the time of sale does not
constitute theft. But removable of a mans trees
blown down by a storm amounts to theft.
Taking salt against the will of the government
from a swamp which is government property
and is guarded by the police is theft
Electricity not being moveable property,
cannot be the subject of theft under the
Indian penal code. But section 39 of the
Indian electricity act 1910 brings the act of
dishonest abstraction consumption or use of
electricity within the meaning of theft as
understood in the Indian penal code
(c) The said moveable property must be taken out of
the possession of any person;
Notes-The term must be distinguished from custody.
A man is said to .be in possession of a thing when he
can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of
others. The property is in his custody when he cannot
deal with it as the owner, but merely keeps it for the
sake of another as in the case of a servant holding
property for his master. To constitute theft the
property must have in the possession of someone and
the possession of someone and then removed from
his possession
In a case K.N.MEHARA v. STATE OF RAJSTHAN AIR 195
7 SC 369 and in RAMRATAN V STATE OF BIHAR AIR
1965 SC 926,930, the ingredients of theft have
defined. In this case in this case there were two
persons K.N.Mehara and M.Z.Philips were employed
in Indian air force. Both of them were convicted
under s 379 IPC for the theft of an aircraft. Both the
accused person were cadets on training in the Indian
air force academy at jodhpur. Had been discharged
from the academy on the ground of the misconduct.
Mehara was a cadet receiving training as a navigator
and was due to a flight in a Dakota as part of his
training. However on the
scheduled day Mehara along with Philips took off not
in Dakota but a Harvard HT822 before the prescribed
time without authorization and without absenting
any of the formalities which were perquisites for an
air craft flight . they landed at a place in Pakistan
about 100 miles away from the India Pakistan blotted.
Both of them were sent back to Delhi and arrested
reroute in jodhpur and protected and convicted theft.
Thus we can indentify the ingredients of theft as
follow (i) dishonestly (ii)movable property (III)out of
the possession of any person (iv)without the consent
of that person(v) moves that property
OF EXTORTION

Section 383-390 of Indian penal code deals with


different types of extortion, where section 383
whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to any
person any property to valuable security, or anything
signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits extortion. For instance A
threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z
unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give
him money. He has committed extortion. Thus we can
find the elements of extortion
In fear of injury to that person or any other
person
Dishonestly inducement of person to put in
fear
To deliever any person ,property, of valuable
security
Or anything sighned which may be converted
into a valuable security
In a very famous case JADUNANDAN SINGH
AND OTHERS V. EMEMPEROR AIR 1941.PAR.
129. It was decided that what will be the
criteria of put in fear of a person? It was
decided that to convict a person in extortion
it must be proved that the victims were put
in fear of injury to themselves or to others.
Also decided that mere threat of divine
displeasure does not amount to extortion
FACT OF THE CASE Narain Dusadh and
Sheonand Singh, Were returning after the
inspection of some fields when the two
petitioners and others assaulted them. The
petitionet gave a blow to Narain on the right leg
and then other people assaulted Sheonandan.
Jadunandan, after this forcibly took the thumb
impression of Narain on one piece of blank
paper and of Sheonandan on three blank
papers. On these findings the two petitioners
and two others were convicted for extortion
under s 384 of IPC.
TANULAL UDHA SINGH V EMPEROR is also relevant
example of extortion. In this case it was said the harm
threatened or caused to be threatened must be form
something illegally done. According to se 43 of Indian
penal code illegal means anything which is an offence
or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes
ground for civil action. To prevent these kinds of
offence in our society Indian penal code section 384
provides punishment whoever commits extortion
shall be punish with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both
THEFT AND EXTORTION
DISTINGUISHED-
Extortion is committed bY wrongful obtaining of consent.
But In theft the offender takes without the owners
consent.
The property obtained by extortion is not limited,
Immovable property may be the subject of extortion.
Whereas in theft only movable property are the subject to
theft.
In extortion the property is obtained by intentional
putting a person in fear of injury to that person or to any
other, and thereby dishonestly inducing him to part with
his property.
Whereas In theft the element of force does not arise
PUNISHMENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES
OF EXTORTION
Section 384 to 389 of Indian penal code
awards punishment for extortion it says
whoever commits extortion shall be
punished with imprisonment of ether
description for a term which may extended to
three years, or with fine, or with both
More over section 385 says whoever, in order
to the committing of extortion, puts any
person in fear, or attempts to put any person
in feat of any injury shall be punished with
imprisonment of either for a term which may
extend to two years or with fine or with
both.
Scope of this section- if the complete offence
for instance fear caused and a consequent
delivery of the property is committed then it
is punishable under section 384. If only the
first part of the offence is committed it is
punishable under this section. The extortion
defined in section 383 includes putting any
person in fear of injury and covers this
section which deals with a less serious
offence
Section 386 putting person in fear of injury in
order to commit extortion- this section says
whoever commits extortion by putting any
person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to
that person or to any person of to any other
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years an shall also be liable to fine. In this
section if the fear is caused is that of death or
grievous hurt in naturally causes great alarm.
The section therefore provides for severe
penalty in such cases
Section 387, extortion by putting a person in
fear of death or grievous hurt. - whoever in
order to the committing of extortion puts or
attempts to put any person in feat of death
or of grievous hurt to that person or to any
other shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine.
However section 386 and sec 387 have the
same relation as sec 384 and se 385 the only
difference being that in a case of this section
and se 386 the injury in fear of which a
person is put is death or grievous hurt.
Should necessarily be instant.
OF ROBBERY

390 of Indian penal code says that in all


robbery there is either
theft or extortion. Now the question comes
when a theft is robbery? And when extortion
is robbery?
of the theft or in committing the theft or in
carrying away or attempting to causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or
hurt or wrongful restrain of feat of instant
death or of instant hurt or of instant
wrongful restrain. is said to committed
robbery. It means every theft is robbery if in
order to committing it
In Harish Chandra v. State of U.P the victim boarded
into train at Chakarpur railway station the accused
and the co- accused along with some other person
entered the same compartment. When the train
reached Thankpur railway station at about 9:30 pm
some of the passengers started getting down from
the compartment and there was a great rush. At that
time the accused forcibly took away the wrist watch
of the victim and when the victim raised an alarm the
co-accused jumped out of the compartment. The
victim also followed them.
And after all the accused were caught and
the stuff were also recovered from them.
Both of the accused were charged for the
robbery. It was argued on behalf of the
defense that since the slapping of the victim
too place after that watch had been stolen
the hurt could not have been said to have
been caused in order to commit the theft so
as to bring the offence under sec 390 IPC the
supreme court rejected the argument
The ingredients of this section is-

1) There is attempts to cause a persons


death or hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of
instant death or.
2) Of instant hurt or instant wrongful
restrain.
Robbery is an aggravated form of extortion
And every extortion is robbery also when in
order to committing it offender at the time of
committing it is in the presence of the person
put in feat and commits the extortion by
putting that person in feat of instant hurt or
of instant wrongful restrain to that person or
to some other persons to do so putting in
fear induces the person so put in fear then
and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
PUNISHMENT FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF
ROBBERY-
Section 392, punishment for robbery- lays down
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished
with regrous imprisionment for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine and if the robbery be committed on the
highway between unset and sunrise the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen
years
Section 393, attempt to commit robbery-
whoever attempts to commit robbery shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment for
a term which may extend to ten years and
shall be also be liable to fine and f the
robbery be committed on the highway
between sunset and sunrise the
imprisonment may ne extended to fourteen
years.
An intention to rob coupled with some overt act
short of robbery in furtherance of the intent is
of paramount importance for convicting a
person under section. Attempts for offences
under the Indian penal code are punishable
under section 511 where no express provision is
made for punishment of such attempts. This
section expressly provides for punishment for
attempts to commit robbery. Section 511 would
not apply to it. Robbery stands on a different
footing from dacoity in this respect as an
attempt at dacoity is punishable as decoity.
Section 394 voluntarily causes hurt in
committing robbery- this section says if any
person in committing f pr in attempting to
commit robbery voluntarily causes hurt such
person and other person jointly concerned in
committing or attempting to commit such
robbery shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life] or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years and shall also liable to fine
Case referred-
Om Praksh v. state of utttarpradesh AIR 1956
ALL 163. It has decided what are the criteria
which take a case in an offence of robbery? In
this case persons had charged for dacoity,
two of them were acquitted, the court said
that for the dacoity there must be 5 persons.
Of criminal misappropriation of
property
403.
403. Dishonest misappropriation of
property.--Whoever dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use
any movable property, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z's
possession in good
faith, believing, at the time when he takes it,
that the property
belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if
A, after
discovering his mistake, dishonestly
appropriates the property to his
own use, he is guilty of an offence under this
section
(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library
in
Z's absence and takes away a book without Z's express
consent. Here,
if A was under the impression that he had Z's implied
consent to take
the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not
committed theft.
But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he
is guilty
of an offence under this section.
(
Explanation 2.-A person who finds property not in the possession
of any other person, and such property for the purpose of
protecting
it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or
misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but
he
is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his
own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the
owner, or
before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice
to the
owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the
owner
to claim it
What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a
case, is a question of fact.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner
of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it: it
is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe
it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real
owner cannot be found.
Illustrations
(a) A finds a rupee on the high-road, not
knowing to whom the
rupee belong, A picks up the rupee. Here A
has not committed the
offence defined in this section
(e) A finds a purse with money, not knowing
to whom it belongs;
he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z,
and appropriates it to
his own use. A is guilty of an offence under
this section.
405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner
entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property,
or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he
has
made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any
other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--
Whoever dishonestly
receives or retains any stolen property,
knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property, shall
be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to
any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any
property,
or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to
do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to
that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil
Service,
intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly
induces Z to let him
have on credit goods for which he does not
mean to pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an
article, intentionally
deceives Z into a belief that this article was
made by a certain
celebrated manufacturer, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay
for the article. A cheats
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy
the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed
or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable
to fine.

You might also like