OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY (FINAL NOTES)

Theft
Section 378
Ingredients of theft
1. Should be a moveable property.
2. Should be in possession of Anyone.
3. Dishonest intention to take it out from the possession of anyone.
4. Without consent
5. A moving in order to such taking.

CASE LAW: K.N Mehra vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369
Facts:
Judgement:
The court analysed the offence of theft under section 378 thus commission of theft
consists in moving a moveable property of a person out of his possession with his
consent. The moving being in order to take the property is dishonest. Thus the absence
of a person's consent at the time of moving and presence of dishonest intention in so
taking and is an essential ingredient of theft.

(IMP POINTS)
In theft possession is important and not ownership.

Pyaare laal bharghava v state of Rajasthan.

Offence of theft done even though it was temporary dispossession. The department
suffered wrongful loss due to the absence of the file, as he had no authority to take the
movable item.

"Animo furandi" - Intention to steal.

Lack of intention to steal means no theft.

CASE LAW: HJ Ramson v Triloki Nath 1942

Here a bus was taken on hire purchase system from a company which had reserved the
right of ceasing the bus on default of payment of instalments. The company took
possession of the bus by force from the driver of the bus who was the servant. It was
held that the possession by the driver was the possession of the master and the company
wasn't entitled to recover possession of the bus even though default in payment of
instalment had taken place. The question whether ownership had or had not passed to
the purchaser is wholly immaterial as this section deals with possession and not
ownership. Therefore, the agents of the company who had taken possession of the bus
forcibly were liable for theft under this section.

CASE LAW: Venkatasami v Emp 1890 14 Mad 229.

Accused was the employee of the postal department and secretly took away two money
playable letters dishonestly to hand them to a delivery peon and share the money. He
was held guilty of theft and dishonest misappropriation of property.

Offence of theft is complete when a property is dishonestly moved. It is not necessary

that the property needs to be completely taken away from possession of the
complainant. Acts which prove sufficient intention and movement backed by dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss is enough to constitute theft.

Baisakhi

The accused cut the string which fastened a neck ornament to the complainants neck
and forced the ends of the ornament slightly apart from her neck, the result that in an
ensuing struggle between the accused and complainant, the ornament fell and was
found on the bed, the accused was held guilty of theft as in the eyes of the there was
sufficient moving of the ornament to constitute theft.

CASE LAW: Vinod Samuel v. Delhi Administration 1991

The complainant's necklace was snatched and when a suspect was caught without
possession of the necklace. He was not held guilty as he was simply running in the
opposite direction. There was a lack of dishonest intention and proof therefore, he was
not guilty as simple suspicion is not enough to bring a conviction of theft.

Section 379 :punishment for theft

- 3 years of maximum imprisonment or fine or both

Section 380 :Theft in dwelling

- Maximum punishment is 7 years.
- Fine

Not dependent on material of building rather the role it plays as a dwelling or a place a
person lives or hinges for a temporary purpose of dwelling or storing material
possessions.
Section 380 is an aggravated form of theft due to the dwelling being a place of
protection or security of a person's living or for their property. Any offence done at a
dwelling leads to invasion of privacy and security of a person's home.

Section 381 - Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master.

Punishment : may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 381 - aggravated form of theft.

CASE LAW: Narsima Kumar v State of Andhra Pradesh 2003.

The accused committed theft of question papers of the State public services commission
conducted exam. He obtained copies from the xerox centre and earned huge money by
selling copies of question papers. The trial court convicted the accused person under
section 381, 411 and 120B of IPC but in appeal the high court set aside the conviction as
there was no sufficient evidence to throw light on the entire situation.

CASE LAW: Jainty Lal purushottam das patel v state of gujrat 1975
Boddepali Lakshminarayan v Suvvari Sanyasi Appa Rao and Ors AIR 1959 AP 530

Lack of dishonest intention leads to no conviction of theft

Section 382 - Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order
yo the commitment of the theft

Punishment- 10 year rigorous punishment and shall also be liable to fine.

Mere preparation and not causing hurt or apprehension of hurt also makes one liable to
conviction under section 382.

SECTION 383 - EXTORTION

Dhanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
Ingredients of extortion had been restated by the Supreme Court as follows:
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to him or to any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person, any property or signed or seal
documents, which may be converted into something valuable.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly.
Difference between Theft and Extortion
THEFT EXTORTION

Offender takes it without owner’s consent. Committed to the wrongful obtaining of

consent.

Theft is done to the moveable property. The property obtained by extortion is not
limited as in the theft to moveable
property only. Immovable property might
also be the subject of extortion.

The element of force does not arise. The property is obtained by intentionally
putting a person in fear of injury to that
person or another and thereby inducing
him to part with his property.

Injury - can also be to reputation. Bodily harm and mental harm.

CASE LAW: Mirad (1844) 1 COX 22

Threatening to expose a clergy men who had sexual intercourse with house of illfame to
his own church and village, to bishop and to the arched bishop and also to publish his
shame in the newspaper was held to be such a threat as men of ordinary firness could
not expected to resist.

CASE LAW: Meer Abbas Ali vs. Omed Ali (1872) 18 WR 17

Making use of real or supposed influence to obtain money from a person against his will
under the threat of refusal of loss of appointment was held to be extortion.

Robinson- Threat of Criminal Accusation

The guilt or innocence of the party threatened is immaterial. Even a threat need not be a
threat to accuse before a judicial tribunal. A threat to charge before any 3rd person is
enough.

Labhshanker Keshvji
The offence of extortion is not complete before actual delivery of the property by the
person put in fear.