THEFT AND EXTORTION

CASE- SEKAR VS ARUMUGHAN; 2000 CRLJ 1552

The basic element common to the offenses under this Chapter is dishonesty, which the Code
describes as the intention of causing “wrongful gain” to one person or ‘wrongful loss’ to
another, but how dishonestly is exercised differs in different cases.

FACTS- Petitioner Sekar had availed a loan of Rs. 4 Lakh during November 1994 from the
Bank of Madura branch of Trichy, Tamil Nadu for purchasing Ashok Leyland Lorry. The
petitioner executed a deed in which the lorry is pledged as a security towards the due
repayment of the amount borrowed by him. The loan was repayable in 60 monthly
installments. In terms, Clause 14(3) of the deeds mentioned that in the event of any default in
the payment of the loan installments, the bank had the right to seize the said lorry. As per
Clause 15(b) of the said deed, the bank upon seizure of the vehicle was vested with the right
to sell the same and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the outstanding due payable
against it. The petitioner had defaulted in payment of monthly installments and as such, on
30-7-1998 the bank seized the said lorry. Then the petitioner filed a suit against the
respondent bank on the file of District Munsif Court, Manaparai claiming that he is the owner
of the lorry and also filed for a mandatory injunction. The petition was dismissed.
Subsequently, he filed the suit in the court of Additional District Judge, Kulithalai who
reversed the findings of the magistrate. After exhausting all these remedies, he filed a
revision petition against the bank for an alleged offense under Section 451 and 91, IPC before
the Madras High Court.

ISSUE- Whether criminal complaints can be filed against an authority exercising its
provisions under the law?
LAWS RELATED-

1. SECTION 379- 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.

ARGUMENTS-

PETITIONER-

 Sekar contended that the Magistrate was mistaken in dismissing both petitions
holding that the investigation is pending. As in the registration certificate book also
his name is there so he is the owner of the lorry. 
 Not claiming any rival ownership of the lorry by the respondent and not obstructing
for directing the respondent to produce the lorry and also to give custody magistrate
failed to recognize that keeping lorry in the custody is illegal.

RESPONDENT-

  The respondent contended that the petitioner pledged the lorry to the bank as security
and Clause 14(e) of the deed of hypothecation clearly says that in the event of any
default in the payment of installments, the bank had the right to seize the lorry.
 Moreover, according to Clause 15(b) of the said deed of hypothecation, the bank has
the right to sell the asset upon the seizure of it and appropriate the sale proceeds
towards the outstanding due and payable to it. So it is clear from Clauses 14(e) and
15(b) of the deed that the respondent is entitled and has the right to seize the lorry in
case of default. 

CONCLUSION-

 When the bank has been empowered to seize the lorry under hypothecation deed, it
cannot be said that the bank has committed theft of the lorry when the borrower has
committed default in payment of instalments, the bank has seized the lorry.
   Even in the writ petition, the petitioner is directed that he can pay the arrears but
however, the same was also not paid. 
 The Magistrate had dismissed these two petitions filed by the petitioner and there is
no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below in these two
petitions. 

SEE MORE-

 PYARELAL BHARGAVA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 CHARANJIT SINGH VS SUDHIR MEHTA