ESSENTIALS OF THEFT

SECTION 379(4) IPC – CONSENT

The illustrations (m) and (n) of sec 378 of ipc where the issue of “consent” has been dealt
with, states:-

The Gauhati High Court, in the case of Prafulla Saikia vs The State Of Assam 2012
CrLJ 3889 {GAU} it is seen that an employee of a Printing Press, was caught red-handed
with a bundle of 84 numbers of stolen ballot papers for the election of the Panchayat
President which were only supposed to be printed in the said printing press. He had already
committed the offence of theft no sooner he, with dishonest intent, to take the said ballot
papers, out of the possession of the owner of the press, without the consent of the owner of
the press, moved the ballot papers in order to such taking. Thus, the offence of theft, as
defined by Section 378 IPC, in respect of the said ballot papers, was held, already
complete.

In the present case, Elizabeth clicked pictures of the set of vignettes written by Diana which
were kept in Diana’s room, without Diana’s permission or knowledge. The fact that Diana
neither knew or permitted Diana impliedly or expressly to take pictures of her vignettes
proves that Elizabeth did not have Diana’s consent for the same, making it a contributory
factor to Elizabeth’s theft.
In the case of,The Empress vs Troyluckho Nath Chowdhry And Ors. ,
(1879) ILR 4 Cal 366
In other words, when a person intends to dishonestly take any movable property out of the
possession of any person, without the consent of that person, and moves that property in
order to such taking, he/she will be said to have committed theft, as seen in the present case
where Elizabeth made copies of Diana’s vignettes through the photographs clicked by her
without Diana’s expressed or implied consent.

SECTION 391(5) IPC-MOVES THAT PROPERTY

Insert Birla Corporation Ltd vs Adventz Investments and Holdings case

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160796086/