Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Indian Penal Code Project
Indian Penal Code Project
Fraud
Group no- 35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
"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.
I) theft;
II) By extortion;
III) By robbery;
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.
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”.
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.
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.