THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY

STUDENT NAME- RITESH MOHAN KATHURIA

ENROLLMENT ID- 19FLICDDN01105

SECTION- “B”

BATCH AND YEAR- 2019-2024 & 02 YEAR

SEMESTER- FOURTH

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO

RITESH MOHAN KATHURIA SUNEEL KUMAR

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
Property is mainly divided into two parts, namely movable and immovable. Any offence
which is committed in regard to any property whether it is movable or immovable is
punishable under the provisions of the law of Crimes or the Indian Penal Code. These
offences and the punishments relating to them are explained in details in sections 378 to 460
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The offences which are mainly recognized in the IPC are ten in number

 Theft.
 Extortion.
 Robbery and dacoity.
 Criminal misappropriation of property.
 Criminal breach of trust.
 Receiving stolen property
 Cheating.
 Fraudulent deed and disposition of property.
 Mischief.
 Criminal trespass

THEFT

DEFINITION OF THEFT UNDER SECTION 378 OF IPC

“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.”

INGREDIENTS OF THEFT

1. There must be a dishonest intention of a person to take the property.

2. Removal of movable property.

3. Such movable property must be taken away.

4. The property must be taken away from the possession of a person. In other words there

must be a possession of that property.

5. Such property must be taken away without the consent of such person.

A. DISHONEST INTENTION TO TAKE AWAY:-It is also called as malafied intention

which can be representation in the form of mens rea. This Mens rea is the base of the theft.
The petitioner must prove that a thing was taken away with the dishonest intention i.e. to
cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to any person.

In Pyarelal Bhargava v. State AIR 1963, a govt. employee took a file from the govt. office,
presented it to B, and brought it back to the office after two days. It was held that permanent
taking of the property is not required, even a temporary movement of the property with
dishonest intention is enough and thus this was theft.

B. MOVABLE PROPERTY:-Movable property is defined in Section 22, IPC as including

‘corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth’.

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, held that the dishonest removing of sand, gravel and
other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of the State’s possession
without the consent, constitute an offence of theft.

In Avtar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 the Supreme Court held that electricity
cannot be considered to be moveable property and section 378 by itself would not include a
theft of electricity. It also held in the same case that dishonest abstraction of electricity
mentioned in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, is not an offence under the IPC, though it is
offence under section 39 of the Electricity Act. Nevertheless, theft of electricity is deemed to
be an offence under IPC as section 39 of the Electricity Act enables punishment under section
379 of the IPC.

C. BE TAKEN AWAY OUT OF POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON:- A movable

thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it that
he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons, and when the
circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. The
property must be in the possession of another person from where it is removed. There is no
theft of wild animals, birds or fish while at a large but there is a theft of tamed animals.

In Mohar Singh v State of Rajasthan,(1980) Supp SCC 655 the accused had snatched the
revolver from a member of the complainant’s party, in order to prevent further bloodshed.
Thereafter, he surrendered the revolver to the police at the earliest. Under the circumstances,
it was held that the accused had no intention to commit theft.

D. IT SHOULD BE TAKEN WITHOUT CONSENT OF THAT PERSON:- The consent

may be express or implied and may be given either of the person in possession, or by any
person having for that purpose express or implied authority.

Punishment for Theft

The person found guilty for commission of offence of theft is punished with imprisonment
for three years or with fine or with both under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code

EXORTION

Definition of extortion under Section 383, IPC, 1860

“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 extortion.”

Punishment for extortion under Section 384:

Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

ESSENTIALS OF EXTORTION

1. A person must intentionally put any person in fear of injury

2. Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person:

a) Property; or

b) Valuable security; or

c) Anything signed and sealed which can be converted into a valuable Security

a) PUTS ANY PERSON IN FEAR OF ANY INJURY:

The term ‘injury’ as defined under Section 44 of the IPC includes only such harm as may be
caused illegally to a person’s mind, body, reputation or, property. It should be such so as to
overpower the will of the person on whom it is exercised in such a way that the act (the act of
delivery) does not remain voluntary, i.e., it affects the free consent of the person put under
fear.

According to Ramjee Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Cr LJ 137, ‘fear’ should be of such a
nature that it unsettles the mind of the person on whom it operates, and takes from his acts the
element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.

In the case of Abdulvahab Abdulmajib Shaikh vs. State of Gujrat, (2007) 4 SCC, it was
held that a threat of criminal charge also amounts to extortion. It is immaterial if the charge is
true or false, mere threat is enough. The threat need not even be to accuse in front of a
judicial magistrate, a threat to charge him/her before any third person is more than enough.

In Queen vs. NathalircMirad, [(1844) 7 WR Cr 28] a threat to expose Bishop of his illegal
relation with a woman was held to be extortion.

In Romesh Chandra Arora vs. The State (AIR 1960 SC 154), the accused took a
photograph of a naked boy and a girl by compelling them to take off their clothes and
extorted money from them by threatening to publish the photograph. He was held guilty of
extortion.

In Kala v Ram Kishan, AIR 1985 SC 1286 held, where the head-master of a school called a
lady teacher to a place where he was alone and induces her to sign three blank papers by
threatening an attack on her modesty is amounted to an offence of extortion.

b) DISHONESTLY INDUCE THE PERSON TO DELIVER TO ANY

PERSON ANY PROPERTY:

Dishonest inducement means that the person would not have otherwise agreed to part with his
property and such parting causes him a wrongful loss. Further, the property must be delivered
by the person who is threatened. Delivery of property or valuable security by the person put
in fear is the essence of the offence of extortion. Property for the purposes of this section
includes both movable and immovable property. Section 30 of the IPC defines the term
‘valuable security’ as: “a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any
legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or who
hereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal
right.”
OTHER CASE LAWS ON EXTORTION

In Habib Khan v State, 1952 CrLJ 17 held, the threats under this section had nothing to do
with the truth of the accusation. The guilt or innocence of the party threatened is immaterial.

ROBBERY

Section 390 in The Indian Penal Code – Robbery

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. 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.

Therefore, robbery is:

a. Theft plus violence causing or attempting to cause death, hurt or

Wrongful restraint or fear of instant violence.

b. Extortion plus offender present plus fear of instant violence plus

Immediate delivery of the thing is extorted.

Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code – Punishment for robbery.

Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment 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 sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen
years.

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Section 393 in The Indian Penal Code – Attempt to commit robbery:

Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery: If
any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such
person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such
robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CASE LAWS:

In Harish Chandra v. State of U.P, AIR 1976 SC 1430 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
defence that since the slapping of the victim to 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 stating that the co-
accused slapped the victim to enable the accused to carry away the stolen property. Under the
circumstances, it would clearly fall within the provision of section 390, IPC, because as per
the section, theft is robbery, if, hurt is caused while carrying away or attempting to carry
away the property stolen. The Supreme Court held both the accused liable for the offence of
robbery.

In Harinder Singh v State of Punjab,AIR 1993 SC 91 the accused was a gunman in PepsI
Roadways Transport Corporation at Kapurthala. He robbed an assistant cashier in the same
corporation and took away a sum of Rs 32,936 and also causes injuries to the cashier. The
accused confined the cashier in a room and bolted it from outside. The cashier raised a hue
and cry after the accused left the place. When the police arrived at the spot, they found
cashier confined in the room and found traces of robbery. Serious injuries were also found on
the person of cashier. The Supreme Court held the accused to be liable for the offence of
robbery
In Tirlok Singh v Satya Deo, AIR 1979 SC 850 the complainant had purchased a truck on
hire-purchase basis from Finance Corporation. The complainant paid the first two monthly
instalments and defaulted on the payment for third instalment. According to the complainant,
the accused in a highhanded manner came to his house and in spite of protest by his wife,
forcibly, under threat of arms, removed the truck and thus were said to have committed the
various offences of robbery and dacoity. The Supreme Court held that the version of the
complainant was very unnatural and untrustworthy. It held that the seizure of truck was a
bona fide right exercised by the accused on the failure of the complainant to pay the third
instalment. Nobody was hurt on the side of the complainant. Under these circumstances, it
was held that no offence of robbery or dacoity was made out.

DACOITY

Section 391 of Indian Penal Code defines Dacoity. There is no difference between robbery
and dacoity accept in the number of offenders. Dacoity is perhaps the only offence which the
legislature has made punishable at four stages that is when 5 or more persons assemble for
the purpose of committing a dacoity, each of them is punishable under section 402 merely on
the grounds of joining the assembly. Another stage is preparation to commit a dacoity, the
person is punishable under section 399. The third stage is the stage of attempting to commit
and lastly the stage of the actual commission of a robbery. Thus attempt to commit dacoity is
also dacoity.

Section 391 in The Indian Penal Code – Dacoity

“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”.

Essentials Ingredients of Dacoity

1. The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery;

2. Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and person

present and aiding must not be less than 5;

3. All such person should act conjointly.

The word conjointly refers to the united or concerted action of 5 or more persons
participating in the act of committing the offence. In other words, 5 or more person should be
concerned in the commission of the offence and they should commit or attempt to commit
robbery.

Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code – Punishment for dacoity

Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Section 396 in The Indian Penal Code – Dacoity with murder: If anyone of five or more
persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity,
every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

CASE LAW: Abul Mian & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand, 2012 Cri LJ 883

Hatim Ansari (deceased) was sleeping in his house along with his wife. He woke up by the
sound of jumping of somebody in his house by scaling boundary wall. The person who
trespassed opened the door from inside. The appellants and other entered into the house and
demanded keys of the box that contained money. When the key was not given to them, they
threw a bomb in front of the appellant which hit him right in the stomach above waist
resulting in injuries. Therefore the wife handed over the keys. They assaulted the appellant
and his wife with lathis and were asking about all the money and ornaments. The informant
died during treatment after 7 days of the incident. The accused were held liable under Section
396 as it was a dacoity with murder.

Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code – Robbery, or dacoity, with

attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:

If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person,
the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven
years.

Section 398 in The Indian Penal Code – Attempt to commit robbery or

dacoity when armed with deadly weapon: If at the time of attempting to commit robbery or
dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such
offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Section 399 in The Indian Penal Code – Making preparation to commit

dacoity: Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Section 400 in The Indian Penal Code – Punishment for belonging to gang

of dacoits: Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of
persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 401 in The Indian Penal Code – Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves:
Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other
gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not
being a gang of thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 402 in The Indian Penal Code – Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity:
Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons
assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine

Satya Narain Choube vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (1) MPLJ 478

It was found that these accused along with others (total 5 or more), committed dacoity in the
house of Babulal. The dacoits exploded Bombs in the house beat the inmates of the house
including ladies and looted them of their cash, ornaments and utensils. When the neighbours
came to help the inmates of the house, on their hue and cry, the dacoits threw bombs and one
bomb exploded at Chhedilal, the neighbour, who died as a result of this explosion and
resultant injuries. The trial Court found that though the identity of other dacoits could not be
established and they could not be arrested, yet they were more than 5 dacoits in all who
participated in this dacoity.

OTHER CASE LAWS

In Ram Shankar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441 the facts are six
persons were charged with committing dacoity. Three out of six persons were acquitted. The
charges frame did not indicate that along with the six persons there were other unknown
persons with them, who had committed dacoity. Since three persons were acquitted, there
were only three other persons left as the persons involved with the crime. Hence, it was held
that the three persons could be convicted only to the lesser offence of robbery under section
392, IPC, and not for dacoity under section 395, IPC.

Criminal misappropriation

Criminal misappropriation takes place not when the possession has been innocently come by,
but when, by a subsequent change of intention or from the knowledge of some new facts with
which the party was not previously acquainted, the retaining becomes wrongful and
fraudulent. The offence consists in the dishonest misappropriation or conversion, either
permanently or for a time being, of property which is already in the possession of the
offender. See illustrations (a), (b) and (C) which show that the original innocent taking
amounts to criminal misappropriation by subsequent acts. The offence is completed by a
mental act.

Section 403 IPC. 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.

INGREDIENTS

1. Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property for a person’s own use.

2. Such property must be movable.

Dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use- For an offence under this
section it is not necessary that the property should be taken with dishonest intention, the
possession of property may come innocently and then by subsequent change of intention , or
knowledge of some new facts with which the party was not previously acquainted, the
retaining of property become wrongful and fraudulent.(Bhagiram Dome v. Abar Dome,
(1888) 15 Cal).The essence of offence under this section is that some property belonging to
another which comes to the possession of accused innocently, is misappropriated or
converted by the accused to his own use. There must be actual conversion of the thing
misappropriated to the accused’s own use. Mare retaining of an article found does not amount
to criminal misappropriation. Misappropriation or conversion need not be permanent, it may
be even for a time being. (Abdool, 1868 10 W.R.(Cr.)23 Illustrations (a), (b) and (c) show
that the original taking was innocent but offence of criminal misappropriation is constituted
because of subsequent dishonest conversion or appropriation.

In a case {Phool Chand Dube, (1929) 52 All.200}, where ‘A’ took possession of stray cattle
and it was not shown that the cattle was stolen property, and he dishonestly retained it, he
was held liable under this [Link], Where a person found a purse on the pavement of a
temple and put it in his pocket, but was immediately thereafter arrested, it was held that he
was not liable for criminal misappropriation, for it could not be assumed that by the mere act
of picking up the purse or putting it in his pocket he intended to appropriate its contents to his
own use. (Inder Singh, (1925) All.288.)

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".

INGREDIENTS

The Section requires-

(1) Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property.
(2)The person entrusted

i. Dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or

ii. Dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to
do in violation

(a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or

(b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such a trust.

This offence consists of any one of the four positive acts, namely, dishonest
misappropriation, dishonest conversation, dishonest use, or dishonest or disposal of property.
Neither failure to account for breach of contract, however dishonest, is actually and by itself
the offence of criminal breach of trust. This section does not require that the trust should be in
furtherance of any lawful object. Offences committed by trustees with regard to trust property
fall within the purview of this section. Negligence or other misconduct causing the loss of
trust property make the person entrusted civilly responsible, but will not make him guilty of
criminal breach of trust.

Misappropriates with criminal or dishonest intention is a sine qua non in an offence of

criminal breach of trust. Dishonesty is as defined in Sec. 24, IPC, causing wrongful gain or
wrongful loss to person. The meaning of wrongful gain and wrongful loss is defined in Sec.
23, IPC, (please see). Dishonest intention to misappropriate is a crucial test to be proved to
bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust.

Cases:

• Velji Raghavji Patel v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433

• Bhuban Mohan Rana v Surendra Mohan Das,(1952) 2 Cal 23

• Anil Saran v State of Bihar,1996 Cri LJ 408(SC)

CHEATING

• Section 415- Cheating

• Section 416- Cheating by personation

• Section 417- Punishment for Cheating

• Section 418- Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to

person whose interest offender is bound to protect.

• Section 419- Punishment for cheating by personation

• Section 420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

SECTION 415

Hawkins defines cheating as, “deceitful practices, in defrauding or endeavouring to defraud

another of his own right by means of some artful device, contrary to the plain rule of common
honesty”.

Cheating= Deceiving + Inducing

• By fraudulently deceiving and inducing the person so deceived

a) To deliver any property, or

b) To consent to the retention of any property by any person

• By dishonestly inducing the person to deliver any property or to give consent to the
retention of any property

• By intentionally inducing the person deceived to do or to omit to do anything which he

would not have done, if he was not so deceived and such act of him caused or was likely to
cause damage, or harm in body, mind, reputation or property.

Section 420 is an aggravated form of cheating and provides enhanced punishment which may
extend to 7 years of imprisonment and fine.

Ingredients

• That the representation made by the accused was false,

• The accused knew that the representation was false at the very time when he made it,

• That the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the
person to whom it was made,
• That the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to
do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted.

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698

The appellant applied to Patna University for permission to appear at the 1954 M.A.
examination in English as a private candidate, representing that he was a graduate having
obtained his B.A. degree in 1951 and that he had been teaching in a school. In support of his
candidature, he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Headmaster of the
school and the Inspector of Schools. Thereupon, an admission card giving him permission to
appear in the M.A. examination was sent. Later, just before the commencement of the
examination it was discovered that the certificates were forged and that the accused had
neither obtained a B.A. degree nor was he a teacher. Held, by making the false statement
about his being a graduate and a teacher in the application submitted to the University, the
accused did deceive the University. His intention clearly was to make the University give

him permission to appear in the M.A. examination. The accused would have succeeded in the
commission of the offence of cheating if the admission card had not been withdrawn. Under
the circumstances, the accused was guilty of attempting to cheat under section 420.