Receiving of Stolen Property, Cheating and

Fraud

Intellectual Property Act

SUPERVISED BY: Submitted By:

Dr. Geetika Walia NEELESH CHANDRA

Roll No- 18212

Group no- 35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any investigation work orchestrated, requested or arranged in isolation is strange to a

certain extent. This assessment work, though orchestrated by me, is an apex of attempts
of numerous people.

"At first, I should thank our India Penal Code Professor, Dr. Geetika Walia for giving
such a subject for my endeavor which helped me in increasing some data related to IPC:
Receiving of Stolen Property, Cheating and Fraud. I should express profound gratitude to
her for her huge recommendations towards the production of this errand."

Starting there, I may similarly need to offer my thanks towards our seniors who expected
a basic capacity in the collection of this investigation work . I can't neglect the
responsibilities made by my classmates and mates towards the fulfillment of this errand
work .And I may moreover need to offer my thanks towards the library staff of my school
which helped me in picking up the sources significant for the plan of my endeavor. Last,
anyway not the least, I should thank the Almighty for clear reasons .

-NEELESH
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................4
2. Elements of PASSING OFF.................................6
3. Why is Passing-off necessary?.............................8
4. When and how the paasing off action arises?.......9
5. Conclusion………………………………………14
 1. INTRODUCTION
Receiving a property that a person knows to be a stolen one is a crime. Such
property may have been stolen by way of theft, extortion, or by any other
way. It is considered a crime because buying of such property would
encourage crimes like theft, robbery etc as the person stealing such property
would get money after selling the stolen property. Therefore, receiving of
stolen property is a crime to prevent the selling of stolen property which may
reward thieves for their criminal acts. It also prevents concealing of property
by a person who knows that such property is obtained by an illegal way.
There are various provisions related to the receiving of stolen property in
IPC. These are given under Section 410 to 414 of the IPC.

2. Stolen Property and Its essential

Elements
Section 410 states that a property whose possession has been transferred by
theft, extortion, or robbery and which has been criminally misappropriated or in
respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is considered a
“stolen property”, where the transfer of it has been made, or its
misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without
India. It further states that if the property subsequently comes into the
possession of a person who is legally entitled to possess that, it then ceases to
be stolen property.
Essential elements:
The property being received by a person must be a stolen property to constitute
an offence of receiving stolen property under the provisions of the Code.
Property whose possession is transferred by the five ways given in Section 410
is considered a stolen property. Those are:

I) theft;

II) By extortion;

III) By robbery;

IV) By criminal misappropriation; and

V) By criminal breach of trust.

 Ownerless Property

It is based on the concept of res nullius which means that a property which has
no owner or which has been abandoned by its actual owner. A property which
has no owner cannot be subject to theft and hence, receiving it would not lead
to receipt of stolen property. For e.g- a bull which has been abandoned by its
owner and belongs to no one, taking it would not amount to receiving of stolen
property.

 ‘Within or Without India’

Section 410 says that it is immaterial to consider whether the transfer has been
made, or criminal misappropriation, or breach of trust has been committed,
within or outside India. The transfer of such property can be made within or
without India to qualify it as “stolen property”.

 Property Obtained Otherwise

 It must be noted that a property obtained by cheating or forgery is not called a
stolen property.

 Property exchanged or converted

A property which is obtained by exchanging or converting stolen property is not
stolen property in itself. For e.g. if some amount of cash is obtained by selling a
stolen property then that cash would not be called stolen property. However, if
an ingot is made by melting a stolen jewellery or ornament, then that ingot
would be stolen property as it is the same in substance, though altered in
appearance.

3. Dishonestly Receiving or Retaining

Stolen Property
Section 411 proposes that whoever dishonestly receives or retains a stolen
property, knowing or having reason to believe that such property is a stolen one,
shall be imprisoned for a term which may extend up to three years, or with fine, or
both. Therefore any person having belief or knowledge about any stolen property
must not receive or retain it.
The liability under Section 411 arises not only for dishonest “reception” but also
for dishonest “retention”. The difference between the two is that in the former, the
person has received the property dishonestly but may not necessarily retain it
dishonestly. However, in the latter, there is a change in the mind of the person
from “honest” to “dishonest” and he then retains that property dishonestly with
himself.
Following are the ingredients that need to be established to prove the guilt of the
accused:

I) That the accused had possession of the stolen property.

II) That before the accused got the possession of the property, the property
was in some other person’s possession.
III) That the accused had knowledge and reason to believe that the property
was a stolen one.
IV) That the accused had intent to deprive the owner of his or her property by
keeping or selling it to another party.

Offence under Section 411 is cognizable and warrant should be issued in the first
instance. The offence is non-bailable and compoundable with the permission of the
Court. The offence is tried under the Magistrate.

4.Possession and various other aspects

of receiving of stolen property, cheating
and fraud
 Receiving or Retaining Stolen Property with Knowledge
The offence under Section 411 is not made punishable just for receiving a
stolen property from any person for any particular reason. The offence is
made punishable only when someone buys such property with the
knowledge or having reason to believe that it was stolen property. The
 word “believe” involves the necessity of establishing that the
circumstances were such that a reasonable person would be convinced
that the property he is purchasing or dealing with, is stolen. If a person
has obtained a property that he does not know to be stolen, it is not
sufficient to show that the accused was careless, or he had reason to
suspect that the property was stolen or he did not make sufficient enquiry
to ascertain the status of that property. It is immaterial whether the person
receiving it knows or not who stole it. Initial possessing of that property
is not a crime but if the person retains it after knowing that it was stolen
property, then the person is liable.

 Concealing and Disposing of Stolen Property

Section 414 deals with concealing and disposing of stolen property. It
states that any person who voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing
of that property or making away of that property which he has knowledge
of or reasons to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to
three years, or with fine, or both.

Following ingredients need to be satisfied before making a person liable

under Section 414:
I) the property in question is a stolen property;
II) That the accused had knowledge or reasons to believe that the
property was stolen property; and
III) That the accused voluntarily assisted in concealing or disposing of
or making away with such property.
 The offence under Section 414 is cognizable, non-bailable and non-
compoundable and triable by a Magistrate.

 Possession
It is not necessary to establish that the stolen goods should have been
produced from the actual possession of the accused. It should be shown
that the accused after believing that the property is a stolen one held that
property in his possession with a dishonest intent. Therefore the
“possession” must be a conscious one, that the person having knowledge
about the stolen property held the same, in order to charge him with
criminal liability.

The criminal liability for possession of stolen property must be actual and
exclusive. It must not lead to constructive possession i.e. a person who is
the superior person in a joint family is presumed to have possession of
the entire family property, and if one of the members of his family
commits such a crime, that supreme person cannot be held to be liable for
the possession of stolen property by that member. Only that person shall
be exclusively made liable who was in actual possession of the stolen
property with a dishonest intention and having knowledge or reason to
believe that such property was a stolen one.

An accused would only be held liable for the property that has been
recovered from him and not for the rest of the property that may be
connected with it. The fact that the rest of the property is not recovered
from him does not change his liability. Also, mere knowledge about the
 whereabouts of the property does not make a person liable under Section
411.

5. Case laws
In the case of Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan, the accused purchased 9kgs of
silver for a paltry sum, having knowledge that it was stolen property. The person
was not considered a bona-fide purchaser by the Court. Silver ingots were
recovered from many persons at his instance and his conviction was held to be
sustainable.

In the case of Nagappa Dhondiba v. State, here the stolen ornaments of a deceased
person which she had been wearing when she was alive were discovered, from the
information given by the accused, within thirty days of the murder of the deceased.
It was held by the Court that the accused can only be made liable under Section
411 and not under Section 302 for murder or Section 394 for voluntarily causing
hurt in pursuance of robbery as there was no evidence to establish the liability of
the person on those grounds.

In the case of State of Karnataka v. Abdul Gaffar, a copper pot containing Rs. 200
in it was stolen from the temple. The presumption was made that the person in
whose possession the pot was found must have committed theft. The property was
worth Rs. 600. A fine of Rs. 200 was imposed under Section 411 considering the
fact that it was stolen from a temple.

In the case of Trimbak v. State, the place from which the property was taken was
in open and easily accessible to all sundry and that in these circumstances it was
not safe to hold that the place was in the possession of the accused, or that the
property was recovered from his possession. The fact that the recovery is done
from accused is compatible with the circumstance that somebody else having
placed the articles there and that resulted in accused acquiring the knowledge about
their whereabouts and the case being so, the fact of discovery cannot be regarded
as a conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of these articles. Based on
the reasons given above, the Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of the accused.

5. CONCLUSION
The provision seeks to protect the crimes like theft, robbery as receiving of stolen
property would encourage such acts. A person engaging in obtaining of stolen
property commits a crime of receiving stolen property. However, there must be a
dishonest intention and knowledge or reason to believe that the property being
received is a stolen one to establish the guilt of the person.