CHAPTER XVII

Of Offences
against Property of
theft
378. Theft:-- Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable
property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent,
moves that property in order to such taking, is said so commit theft.
Explanation 1:— A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being
movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of
being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2:— A moving effected by the same act which effects the
severance, may be a theft.
Explanation 3:— A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing
an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any
other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4:— A person, who by any means causes an animal to
move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in
consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5:— The consent mentioned in the definition may be
expressed or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession,
or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or
implied.
Illustrations
(a) A cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly
taking the tree out of Z's possession without Z's consent. Here as
 soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has
committed theft.
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to
follow it. Here, if A's intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of
Z's possession without Z's consent, A has committed theft as soon as
Z's dog has begun to follow A.
(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in
a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure.
As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the
treasure.
(d) A being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate,

dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z's consent. A has
committed theft.
(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a
warehouse; till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and
sells it. Here the
 (n) A asks charity from Z's wife. She gives A money, food and clothes,
which A knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here it is probable that A
may conceive that Z's wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was
A's impression, A has not committed theft.
(o) A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which
A knows to belong to her husband Z, and Co be such property as
she has no authority from Z to give; If A takes the property
dishonestly, he commits theft.
(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own
property, takes the property out of B's possession. Here, as A does not
take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.
379. Punishment for theft:—
Whoever commits theft, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.
Of extortion
383. Extortion:—
VShoever, 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'.
Illustrations
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z, unless Z gives
him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed
extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement,
unless Z will sign and deliver to A, a promissory note binding Z to pay
certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed
extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign
and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain
 produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond, A
has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign
or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and
delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted
into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.
384. Punishment for extortion:—
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.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
(Sept. 2006)
Q. 45. When theft becolltes Robbery and when dacoity?
Ans. Section 378 IPC deals with the theft. It has been defined as under:
"Whoever intending to take dishonestly, any movable 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'.
In order to constitute theft the following five factors are essential:
(i) Dishonest intention to take property;
(ii) The property must be movable;

(iii) It should be taken out of the possession of another person;

(iv) It should be taken without the consent of the person;
(v) Theremustbesomemovingofthepropertyinorderto
accomplish the taking of it;"
According to explanations attached to Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code,
a thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property is not
the subject of "theft"
"When the property becomes capable if being the subject of theft as
soon as it is severed from the earth (Explanation 1).

A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a
theft. (Explanation 2).
 A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing on obstacle
which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing
as well as by actually moving it. (Explanation 3).
A person who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move
that animal, and to move everything which is consequence of the
motion so caused, is moved by that animal. (Explanation 4).
The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied,
and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person
having for that purpose authority either express or implied (Explanation
5).
Whoever commits theft is punishable u/s. 379 IPC. Section 390 IPC deals
with Robbery. It deals with those circumstances under which theft and
extortion become robbery. Section 391 IPC defines dacoits.
Vtrhen theft is robbery:
Theft is robbery, if in order to the committing of theft, or in committing
the theft, the offender for that end voluntarily causes or attempts cause to
any person death, or hurt; a wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or
of instant hurt; or of instant wrongful restraint.
The following are the points of difference between theft and robbery.
Firstly in case of theft offender takes property without the owner's
consent white robbery is aggravated form of theft.
Secondly theft can be committed in respect of movable proerty if it is a
form of extortion and not otherwise.
Thirdly the element of force does not exist in theft, while force is a
necessary element in all forms of robbery.
Fourthly in case of theft, element of fear does not exist, while element of
fear exists in case of robbery.
When theft is dacoity:
Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion.
The chief disånguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent
fear of violence. Dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons,
otherwise there is no difference between dacoits and robbery. The gravity
of the offence consists in the terror it causes by the presence of number of
offenders. Abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is
committed are counted in number.
Therefore all dacoities are robberies, but all robberies are not dacoities.
When robbery is committed or attempted to be committed by five or move
persons then robbery becomes dacoity. Robbery can be committed even by
a single person, while for dacoity minimum five persons are required.

Q. 46. Whether a person has committed theft of a gold chain which he found
on the deadbody of a person on the road. Could he be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 379 ofIPC? If so, state the reason. If not, which is the
provision under which he can be hauled up under the Indian Penal Law? (June
2002)

Ans: Section 378 IPC deals with theft. Section 379 deals with punishment
for theft. In order to constitute theft five factors are essential:—
 (1) Dishonest intention to take property;

(2) The property must be movable;

(3) It should be taken out of the possession of another person;

(4) It should be taken without the consent of that person; and

(5) There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish

the taking of it;
Sections 403 and 404 IPC deal with Criminal misappropriation of
property. Ingredients of Section 403 IPC are as follows:
(1) There must be dishonest misappropriation of conversion of
property for a person's own use; and
(2) Such property must be movable.

(3) Punishment for this offence is imprisonment for two years or fine or
both.
Section 404 IPC deals with dishonest misappropriation of property
possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.
In the Book Indian Penal Code by Ratanal Ranchoddas and Dhirajlal
Keshavlal an illustration is given under the 3 nd ingredient of Section 379 IPC.
It shows that where property dishonestly taken belonged to a person who was
dead and therefore in no body's possession, or where it is lost property
without any apparent possessor, it is not the subject of theft, but of criminal
misappropriation vide illustration given at 'g' to Section 378 IPC. According
to illustration 'g' of Section 378 IPC 'A' finds a ring lying on the high road, not
in the possession of any person. 'A' taking it, commits not theft, though he
may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
In the given problem a person has committed theft of a gold chain which
he found on the deadbody of a person on the road. The facts of the problem
clearly attracts the illustrations given under Section 379 and 378 IPC. In
view of the discussion made above the person has committed the grave of
 criminal misappropriation of property as shown in Section •403 IPC Section
404 IPC has no application to the given problem.
Q. 47. Answer with reasons what offence has been committed in thefo
Ilowing illustration :
'Z' the paramour of 'A' dishonestly takes valuable property of her
husband wJiicJi he knows 'A' has Ito authority to give ? [Year 19871
Ans : Section 378 IPC deals with the offence of theft. Section 379 IPC deals
with punishment for the offence of theft.
In order to constitute theft fivefactors are essential .

(1) Dishonest intention to take property.

(2) The property must be movable.

(3) It should be taken out of the possession of another person.

(4) It should be taken without the consent of that person.

(5) There must be some removal of the property in order to

accomplish the taking of it.

In the given problem the valuable property belongs to 'A's husband. IA' has
no authority over the said property. 'Z' dishonestly took the property from JA'.
This dishonest act of 'Z' constitutes the offence of theft. And Jz' is liable for
punishment u/s. 379 IPC.

The above example has similarity with the illustration given at 'O' to
Section 378 IPC.

Q. 48. Write a briefnote pinpointing the differences between theft,

extortion, robbery, and dacoity ? [Year 1989 ; Dec. 2004 ; Oct, 2007 ; Nov.
2015]
Distinguish between 'Theft' and 'Extortion'? [Jul. 2007; Aug. 2009; Nov.2015J
 Ans : Theft is defined u/s. 378 IPC and it is punishable u/s. 379 IPC.
Extortion is defined u/s. 383 IPC and it is punishable u/s. 384 IPC.
Robbery is defined u/
s
. 390 IPC and it is punishable u/s, 392 IPC. Similarly Dacoity is defined
u/s. 391 IPC and it is punishable u/s. 395 IPC.
 Theft and causing loss by fire: On a combined reading of the depositions
we find that the eye-witnesses consistently stated that they had seen Haranath
setting the shop on fire, even P.W. 5 whose evidence was disbelieved by the
learned Judge, corroborated such statement. Who informed the de
factocomplainant is not much relevant herein. Once the incident was proved
through eye-witness, minor discrepancy in evidence would not absolve the
accused from the charges brought against him. It is true that the allegation of
theft could not be proved as Mobarak could not be produced as witness. Such
infirmity on the part of the prosecution already resulted in acquittal of the
accused from the charges, inter alia, under Sections 379 and 323 of the
Indian Penal code. That

however, does not by itself warrant acquittal from the charge of setting the
shop on fire and thereby causing loss and damage which was witnessed by
several witnesses who consistently deposed proving the said incident. The
appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. (Haranath Chatterjee v. State of
West Bengal 2009 (1) ALT (Cri.) 32 (NRC) = 2008 cri.L.J. 4169 (Cal.)).
Extortion: If someone forces another person to deliver some property as
alleged, without there being an element of dishonest intention to cause injury
or the feeling of fear of injury in the deliverer, an offence of extortion cannot
be made out. In the compliant given by the fourth respondent to Mr.M.V.
Thomas, the retired I.P.S. Officer, who sent a written complaint on 15-6-2002,
the element of 'fear of any injury to her' is very conspicuous by its absence.
If only the accused had obtained the blank white papers and blank
promissory notes from the fourth respondent by intentionally putting her in fear
of injury, in all probabilities there would not have been any necessity for
returning two blank papers including one promissory note. This only leads to an
inference that the force allegedly put on her does not in any manner amount to
fear of injury. In the absence of-any such fear of injury, it would not be possible
to allow the Investigating Agency to investigate the Crime which amounts to
abuse of process of law,

By a reason of catena of decisions, it is now axiomatic that the power unde r

Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash a crime, investigation or prosecution has to be
exercised in exceptionally rare cases, inter alia, where on the face of it, the
complaint does not disclose the commission of offence or the complaint is not
pregnant with ingredients of such offence as defined in law. (Lanka
Hanumantha Rao and others v. State ofA.P. and others; 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.)
140 (A.P.)).
Difference between theft and extortion: —
Theft
(1) In theft the property is taken
away without the consent of the
owner.
(2) In case of theft only the
movable property can be a
subject matter of theft.
(3) In case of theft there is no
element of force.
(4) In case of theft there is no
(4)
delivery of property, as the
offender takes the property
without the consent of the
owner.
Robbery is an aggravated form of theft.
fear of instant violence is robbery.
Difference between theft and Robbery :
Theft
(1) In the case of robbery the
(1) In case of theft the offender takes
property without the owner's
consent.
(2) Robbery may be committed in
(2) Theft can be committed in respect
of movable property only.
Extortion
(1) Extortion is committed with
the consent of the owner
which is not given freely.
(2) In case of extortion movable
as well as immovable
property may be subject
matter of theft.
(3) In extortion the property is
obtained by putting a person
in fear of injury to himself
or another and there by
inducing him to part with
his property.
In extortion there is delivery
of property as distinct from
taking away.
Theft coupled with violence or
Robbery
offender takes the property
from the owner with violence
or fear of instant violence.
respect of movable property if
it is in a form of extortion and
not otherwise.
(3) In theft element of force does not
exist. (3) In all forms of robbery force is
a necessary element.
(4) In case of robbery element of
(4) In case of theft, element of fear fear exists.
does not exist.
 Difference between Robbery and Dacoity :
All dacoities are robberies but all robberies are not dacoities. When robbery
is committed or attempted to be committed by five or more persons then
robbery becomes dacoity. Therefore, robbery can be committed even by a
single person while for dacoity minimum five persons are required.

Q. 49. The accused was a cadet in the Indian Air Force, He took out
from Jodhpur Aerodrome an Aircraft which was not meant for training
without the authority of the Commandant and flew it away to Pakistan,
Later at the instance of the accused himself, the Indian High Commissioner
in Pakistan arrangedfor the return to India of the accused and the Aircraft.
It was contended on behalf of the accused that the intention of the accused
was to go to Pakistan and not to steal the Aircraft which he always meant
to return; there was thus no dishonest intention on the part of the accused
and he could not be convicted of theft. Discuss the liability of the accused
for the offence of theft? [Year 1972] Ans : In order to constitute theft five
factors are essential.
(1) Dishonest intention to take property.
(2) The property must be movable.
(3) It should be taken out of the possession of another person.
(4) It should be taken without the consent of that person.
(5) There must be some removal of the property in order to
accomplish the taking of it. (Sec. 378)
In the given case taking out of Aircraft by the accused for an
unauthorised flight gives him the temporary use of the Aircraft for his own
purpose. He deprived the owner of Aircraft i.e. the Government of its
legitimate use for its purpose. Such use being unauthorised is a gain or loss
by unlawful means.
If the ingredients of the offence are seen, there is dishonest intention in
taking away the property i.e. Aircraft. It is a movable property. The Aircraft
was taken out of the possession of the Government. There is no consent of the
Government it taking away the Aircraft by the accused. The accused in taking
of Aircraft to Pakistan has accomplished his desire. All the circumstances
clearly establish the case against the accused for the offence u/s. 379 IPC. It was
decided by the Apex Court in the case of K.N. Mehra vs. State of Rajasthan
1957 Crl.LJ 552 : 1957 MIDC 566 : 1957 SCA 364 1957 All.LJ 669 1957 SCC
192 : (1957) Mad.LJ (Cr.) 308 : 1957 SCJ 386 1957 All.WR (HC) 480 : 1957
S.C.R. 623 : AIR 1957 SC 369.
 Q. 50. Answer with reasons what offence has been committed ilt
thefollowiltg illustration :
'A' threatens to publish a defantatory pamphlet against 'B' unless the
latter gives him lnoney ? [Year 1987 & Oct. 20071
Ans : Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code defines extortion as under—
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person so
put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or any
thing signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security
commits extortion.
It requires the following ingredients—

(i) A person must be put intentionally in fear of any injury to himself

or another.
(ii) And a person so put in fear must be induced dishonestly to deliver
to any person, property, or valuable security or anything signed or
sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
Section 384 IPC punishes the persons who are found guilty of
committing an offence of 'extortion'.
The fear of injury must be of a real nature. The injury to the character may
also be an injury. Éven the threat of criminal charge whether true or false may
amount to extortion.

In the given problem, 'A' threatens to publish a defamatory pamphlet

against 'B' unless the latter gives him money.
 Here the act of 'A' clearly attracts the definition of Section 383 IR. Because,
'A' intentionally puts 'B' in fear of injury i.e., injury to the person of 'B' by
publishing defamatory matter, dishonestly induced him (B) to deliver him
money.

The given problem clearly resembles the illustration given at (a) to Section
383 IPC. Therefore, A has committed an offence u/s.383 IPC and is liable for
punishment u/s. 384 IPC.