Offences against property

Introduction
Property can be categorized into two parts i.e. movable and immovable. Any offence which
is committed against either of the two is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And
these offences are given in chapter 17 of the Indian Penal Code which covers Section 378 to
Section 462. And these offences are theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, criminal
misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, receiving of stolen property, cheating,
mischief and criminal trespass. Let’s discuss in details.
Theft : Section 378 – 382
It is defined under Section 378 of IPC, When a person intends to dishonestly take any
moveable property out of the possession of any other person without his/her consent,
moves that property in order to take it, such taking is said to commit theft. In simple terms,
when a person takes away the property from the possession of an individual who is in
charge without his consent amounts to theft.
Essential Ingredients of Theft
 Dishonest Intention to take property
 The property must be movable
 The property should be taken out of the possession of another individual
 The property taken without the consent of that person
 movement of the property is necessary in order to accomplish the taking of it.
Dishonest Intention – intention is the essence of the offence of theft. Intention must be
dishonest and the intention to take dishonestly must exist at the time of moving/taking of
the property. A key factor for dishonest intent is doing any act knowingly. If the property is
taken out of possession without any dishonest intention i.e. without the intention of causing
wrongful loss or wrongful loss to anyone, it is not theft.
For example, If you take the bike keys of your neighbor, knowing that it belongs to him, then
that’s theft but if you took it thinking it’s your own then that’s not theft because there is no
‘dishonesty’ here.
Movable property – Property subjected to theft must be movable. Things attached to the
land may become movable property by cutting.
For Example, Akash cuts down a tree on Ram’s ground dishonestly with the intention of
taking the tree out of Ram’s possession without his consent. Here as soon as Akash has
detached the tree from the ground in order to take it, he has committed theft.
Taking out of the possession of another person – Any property which is stolen should be in
possession of another person. Until the property is removed, no offence has been
committed.
For example, Yash finds a phone which belongs to Ram on a sofa in his house. A mobile
phone was in the possession of Ram; if Yash removes it dishonestly, he commits theft. Here,
the phone was in Ram’s possession.
Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
In this case, the Hon’ble court held that the mere intention of the offender to take property
dishonestly out of the possession of a person without his consent is no offence. Until the
property is removed, no offence has been committed. The actual removal of property from
another person’s possession is necessary, as mentioned in Section 378 of IPC.
Taking without consent – In order to constitute theft, the property must have been taken
without the consent of the person who has possession of it. Consent may be implied or
expressed. The offence will take place when the offender takes the property dishonestly and
without the consent of that person.
K.N. Mehra v. the State of Rajasthan
In this case, the Supreme Court held that proof of intention to cause permanent deprivation
(हानि) of property or to obtain wrongful gain is not necessary for the purpose of proving
dishonest intention. Absence of a person’s consent to whom the property belongs at the
time of moving it and the presence of dishonest intention at the time of taking that property
are the essentials to commit theft.
Movement of property – The offence of theft is complete when there is dishonest moving of
the property. The least removal of the thing taken from the place where it was before,
amounts to taking, though it may not be carried off. It is not necessary that the property
should be removed out of the owner’s reach or carried away from the first place in which it
was found.
Punishment for the offence of Theft
The punishment for committing theft in the Indian Penal Code is mentioned under Section
379 of the Code as whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Extortion : Section 383
It is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. Whoever intentionally puts any
person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces
the person so put in fear ‘to deliver’ to any person any property or valuable security, or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extor-
tion”.
Main Ingredients
 Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to either himself or others
 Dishonest inducement to the person to deliver a valuable property or security to any
other person.
Illustrations –
i) if X threatens Y that he will kill her husband if she fails to pay Rs 1 crore. This is a case of
extortion against X.
ii) Arman threatens Zen that he will keep Zen’s child in wrongful confinement unless Zen will
sign and deliver to A, a promissory note binding Zen to pay 1 lakh to Arman. Z signs and
delivers the note. Arman has committed extortion.
Note: Movable and immovable property both are covered under extortion.
Punishment
Section 384 contains the punishment for extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years,
or with fine, or with both.
Robbery : section 390
In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery – Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in
committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by
the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person
death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint.
Thus, theft becomes robbery when the following conditions are satisfied;
i) When the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause;
 Death, wrongful restraint or hurt or
 Fear of instant death, instant wrongful restraint or instant hurt.
ii) And the above act(s) is done;
 While committing the theft
 To commit the theft
 While carrying away the property obtained by theft or
 While attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
For example: A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes
without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and by committing that theft, has
voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
When extortion is robbery – Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing
the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by
putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to
that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in
fear then and there ‘to deliver’ up the thing extorted.
Thus, extortion becomes robbery when the following conditions are satisfied –
1. When a person commits extortion by putting another in fear of instant death, wrongful
restraint or hurt.
2. Then the offender induces the person under such fear ‘to deliver the property’ at that
very instant; then and there.
3. The offender is in the near presence of such a person put in fear at the time of extortion.
Illustration: A meets Z with his child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to
throw him down a rock unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse.
Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant harm to the child
who is present. A has therefore robbed Z.
However, if A obtains property from Z by saying, “Your child is in the hands of my gang, and
will be put to death unless you send us 1 lakh rupees.” This is extortion, and punishable as
such; but it would not be robbery unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.
In the case of Sikander vs State of Bihar, it was held that where the accused attacked his
victim by knife many times and succeeded in acquiring the ear rings and key from the string
of her salwar, he will be punished under this section because of the presence of hurt.
Punishment for robbery : Section 392
The punishment for robbery is given under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By
this section, any person who commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
which may be extended up to 10 years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, then the period of
imprisonment may be extended up to 14 years.
Dacoity : section 391
When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the
whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and
persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every
person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.
Ingredients
1) The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery
2) The Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons present and aiding
must not be less than five.
3) All such persons should act conjointly
Illustration: a gang of five dacoits, one of whom had a gun, raided the house. After looting,
while they were running away with their loot, one of them who had a gun shot down one
villager. It was held that the murder committed by the dacoits while carrying away the stolen
property was murder committed in the commission of dacoity, and every offender was
therefore liable for the murder.
Note: Ordinary, preparation to commit an offence is not punishable but dacoity is one of the
few exceptions where preparation is punishable.
Punishment for Dacoity :
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for dacoity. It says that,
whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Criminal Misappropriation of Property : section 403
Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use, any movable property,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2
years, or with fine, or with both.
Ingredients To establish the offence of misappropriation following ingredients have to be
satisfied –
(i) the defendant embezzled property and converted the property to his use.
(ii) he does so dishonestly.
(iii) the property is movable; and
(iv) the movable property belonged to the complainant
In the case of Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that the words
used in section 403 such as ‘converts to his own use’ necessarily connotes that the accused
has used or dealt with the property in derogation of the rights of the owner of the property.
Illustration: A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in his absence, and takes
away a book without Z’s 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.
Note: Criminal Misappropriation of property is distinguished from the offence of theft. The
offence of theft and criminal misappropriation of property have the aspect of dishonesty in
common. But in case of theft mere moving of the property from the possession of owner is
sufficient to constitute the offence, whereas, to prove the offence of criminal
misappropriation of property the intention of the accused to convert or misappropriate the
property so dishonestly taken into possession should also be established.
Criminal Breach of Trust : section 405
In simple words, criminal breach of trust means that there were at least two parties, one of
whom entrusted his property to others. And the other person dishonestly misappropriated
or used or converted or disposed of that property.
Here the word ‘property’ is not limited and would include both moveable and non-moveable
property (refer R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1962 SC1821]).
As per section 405, the following are the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal
breach of trust –
  That the person who is accused was entrusted with the property or had dominion
(sovereignty or control) over the property.
 That the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use or
dishonestly used or disposed of the property.
Thus, we can say that the essential ingredients of the offence are ‘entrustment’ and
‘dishonest misappropriation’.
Entrustment
Entrustment of property means creating a fiduciary relationship between the owner and the
trustee (accused) where;
 The owner may transfer the possession of the property to the accused but retains
the ownership or proprietary rights.
 This transfer of possession is for some specific purpose out of faith and trust that the
transferor has over accused.
 The transfer must be done by free will and not under any pressure.
It is not necessary that the property is entrusted to the accused by the owner himself. It can
be entrusted by some other person as well (refer Somnath puri v. state [AIR 1972 SC1490]).
Note: The domain over property means control over the property. The accused was in
charge of the property and enjoyed control over the property. For instance, the director of a
company has domain over the property because of his position in the company. In case of a
partnership, a partner does not have domain over the firm’s property unless there is an
entrustment of the domain through a special contract between the partners.
Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
According to Section 406, the punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 3 years or
fine or both.