Theft and Extortion Under IPC

Theft
Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit
theft”. There are five explanations to the said definition, mentioned in the code (IPC) which are further illustrated
by 16 examples.

Hence we can say that section 378 of the IPC defines ‘theft’ as the dishonest removal of moveable property ‘out
of the possession of any person’ without the consent of that person.

Intention
Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting
his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s
possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, B
commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can also be concluded from the above situation that
a person can be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when anything is taken under a claim of right,
provided that claim is fair, good and bona fide, the thing so taken, cannot be dishonest. Thus, such taking cannot
amount to theft.

Fine For Theft

Section 379 of the IPC, penalizes ‘theft’. It lays down the punishment for theft as either imprisonment for a term
(which may extend to three years), or with fine, or both.

Ingredients for Theft

Theft has the following defining ingredients which must be proved in a given case, namely:

• Dishonest intention to take the property;

• The property must be moveable;
• It should be taken out of the possession of another person;
• It should be taken without the consent of that person;
• There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it’s taking;
• In the name of justification to theft, if a man in extreme want of food or clothing steals either to relieve
his present necessities, the law allows no such excuse to be considered.

In other words, as per law, one can’t steal no matter what.

Movable property
The subject matter of theft must be moveable property. It must not be a static one (immovable property). Moveable
property is defined in Section 22 of the IPC.
Animals
While mentioning above about the movable property in section 378, it also includes ‘animals’ in its definition.
The section itself explains the matter related to animals. Any animal which is a pet, i.e. any animal within the
possession of the owner is considered to be the property of the owner. Any property, which is taken away from
the owner without the consent of the owner, amounts to theft.

Hence if A, being Z’s servant is entrusted by Z with the care of his dog takes and sells the dog to some other
party, without Z’s consent. Here A’s act will amount to theft.

Section 379 of IPC as mentioned earlier, quotes punishment for theft as imprisonment for a term up to three years,
or fine, or both.

As in any other theft case, the procedure here remains the same. When a person approaches the police station with
a complaint regarding the theft of an animal (pet), the complainant must give a detailed description of the lost
animal and if possible, along with the photograph. It should be immediately filed as an F.I.R, a copy of which
should be duly signed, stamped and dated, along with the time and should be handed to the complainant. The duty
officer of the police station is responsible for making all the necessary entries. The complainant has the right to
file an F.I.R. Hence animals under movable property’s definition are capable of theft.

Fish
Fish in their free state are regarded as ferae naturae (a Latin word meaning, of a wild nature. Animal (roaming
freely) is not the subject of absolute ownership. A qualified property in such animals might be acquired by taking
or taming them or while they are on one’s estate), but they are said to be in the possession of that person who has
possession of any area full of water like a tank. Fishes are also regarded as being in the possession of a person
who owns an exclusive right to catch them in a fishery, but only within that spot. Thus, theft can be said to have
been committed if fish from a tank which is in the possession of its holder, is caught by the offender without the
consent of the owner.

Human corpse
Dealing with a human corpse in IPC can be considered to be a special case. There can be many arguments to
support this statement like a dead body is not a “person” in the eyes of the law. Hence, it not being a person,
removal of moveables from a dead body can not amount to theft. To be considered theft, the movable property
has to be taken out of the possession of any person without his consent and a dead body is not a person. Removing
ornaments from the dead body hence, can not be equated to the removal of ornaments from the possession and
consent of a person. However, the proper provision to deal with this kind of a case is Section 403 of IPC (Criminal
misappropriation).

Electricity
Theft of electricity is a cognizable offence and police can investigate without any complaint by the electrical
inspector. The investigation does not require any complaint filed by the person aggrieved by the theft or at the
instance of the government.
Possession
As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes
the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there
are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also
be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object),
even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Joint Possession: Under this, there are two points to be considered, which are as follows:

• Mere Custody doesn’t Amount to Possession;

• Temporary Deprivation or Dispossession is also Theft.

For any act to come under the definition of theft, it must make sure that the property must be taken out of the
possession of its holder without his/her consent.

Dishonest Intention
Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting
his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s
possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he
commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a
person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when anything is taken under a claim of right,
provided that claim is fair, good and bona fide, the thing so has taken, cannot be dishonest. Thus, such taking
cannot amount to theft.

One of the ingredients to the offence of theft is dishonest intention to take property. The intention is one of the
most important deciding factors which helps in making sure that the given act is theft. The intention to take
dishonestly must exist at the time of the moving of the property.

Without Consent
For better understanding on the concept of free consent and what constitutes of free , please click here. The con-
sent could be implied or express. Further, it may be of the person in possession, or by any person having implied
or express authority for that purpose.

Another example of this could be where A asks for charity from Z’s wife. Z’s wife gives A money, food, and
clothes, of which A is aware that they belong to Z, her husband. Here A may think that Z’s wife is authorized to
give away alms (money or food given to poor people). If this was A’s intention in the form of an impression then
he has not committed theft.
The case would have been entirely different if, A was an illicit lover of Z’s wife and she (Z’s wife) gives a valuable
property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and Z has not given authority to his wife to give that
property away at her discretion. Here if A takes the property (dishonestly), he commits theft.

Moving or taking
A puts a treat for B’s dog to induce the Z’s dog to follow him. Here, if A intended to dishonestly take Z’s dog out
of Z’s possession without his consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog had begun following him.

If A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure and he drives that bullock in a certain direction for dishonestly
taking the treasure in his possession, A commits theft of treasure, as soon as the bullock begins to move.

Difference between Larceny and Theft

Going by the literal definition, larceny is illegally taking away somebody’s personal property, with a depriving
intention. Theft, on the other hand, is an act of taking of property with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of
it. Hence we can conclude that larceny is a kind of theft restricted to personal property. Further, we can hence
conclude that theft is an umbrella term under which lies larceny. Hence we conclude that larceny and theft are
two entirely different things.

Punishment for Theft

Section 379 of the IPC establishes the punishment for theft as imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. Other
succeeding provisions contain more severe punishment for theft under aggravating circumstances. For
example, Section 380 of IPC punishes the commission of theft in a building, tent or vessel used for dwelling or
residence. The object of this provision is to provide greater security to properties in dwelling premises. The
punishment for this is imprisonment up to 7 years along with fine.

Aggravated Forms of Theft

Robbery
According to Section 390 of IPC, there is theft in every robbery. In other words, robbery is an aggravated form
of theft. Theft essentially means to take a movable property out of a person’s lawful possession without obtaining
his consent. Robbery generally takes place when, while committing theft, the offender, either attempts to actually
cause or merely cause fear of instant death/hurt/wrongful restraint to any person.

Thus, theft becomes robbery when the offender commits any of the above acts while committing theft. It can also
happen when he completes the theft and tries to move the property away.

Dacoity
Dacoity is the aggravated form of robbery which inturn is an aggravated form of theft. Dacoity is said to take
place when robbery is committed by 5 or more people and they all share common intention.
Extortion
In literal terms, extortion refers to the illegal practice of obtaining anything by the means/usage of threat or
force. Section 383 of IPC defines extortion as, “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”.

For example;

If A threatens to publish a defamatory statement concerning Z unless Z gives him money. A thus induces fear in
Z to give him money. Hence, A has committed extortion.

If X sends club-men to threaten Z unless Z signs and delivers the required bonding to the club-men. Here X
commits extortion.

If X threatens Z that he/she will keep the child of Z under wrongful confinement and tells Z that it can be avoided
only when Z signs and delivers the promissory note to X. This note states that Z needs to pay certain money to
X. Here, X commits extortion.

Ingredients
For any offence to be extortion it must have the following ingredients:

1. Putting a person in fear.

2. The fear so caused must be a fear of injury either to himself or to people of his interest.
3. The fear must be caused intentionally.
4. As a consequence of the exercised fear, the person put in fear must be induced by the offender to deliver
any property or any valuable security or anything signed or sealed to any person which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security.
5. The offender must act dishonestly in doing so, i.e., he must act to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

Theft and Extortion: Distinction

The offence of extortion differs from the offence of theft in many ways as these two terms are entirely different
from each other. The following are some differences:

Delivery of property is a major distinguishing factor when it comes to distinguishing between theft and extortion.
In theft, the property is removed or taken away without the consent of the person who has possession of the
concerned property. In the case of extortion, there is a delivery of property with consent which is wrongfully
obtained, by inducing fear.

Immovable objects and moveable objects both can be made the subject matter of extortion. However, in case of
theft, and only movable object can be the subject matter.

Another important distinguishing factor is the mode of delivery of the property:

In case of theft, the property is taken by the offender without the consent of said property’s holder. Hence we can
conclude that the property in case of theft is delivered by the offender to himself. However, in case of extortion,
the property is delivered to the offender by the person having possession of the said property because he/she is
induced to fear of injury either to him/her or to the person of his/her interest. Hence, the delivery of property in
extortion is done by obtaining the consent of the property’s holder, but wrongfully.

Sri Hari Singh Gour in his book, “The Penal Law of India” has explained and distinguished the offence of
extortion in the following words: “The intimidation by which the extortionist dishonestly victimises another is
the principal distinguishing feature of the offence which is otherwise allied to cheating and theft and other
offences of which the object is dishonest deprivation of property”.

The offence of extortion is more like cheating than like theft since cheating is also capable of being committed in
respect of immovable objects.
In a nutshell, it can be concluded as: