THEFT – Section 378

Section 378 – Definition

Section 379 – Punishment (3 years/fine/both)
Section 380 – Theft in dwelling house: building/vessel/tent (7 years/fine/both)
Section 381 – Theft by servant/clerk (7 years/fine/both)
Section 382 – Theft after preparation for causing death, hurt, restraint in order to commit
theft (10 years/fine/both)

Ingredients
1) Movable property
2) Taken/moved
3) Out of possession
4) Without consent
5) With dishonest intention

Pyarelal v. Rajasthan (1963 SC) - A person will be guilty of theft

(1) if he intends to cause a wrongful gain or wrongful loss by unlawful means, of property to
which the person gaining is not legally entitled to or to which the person losing is entitled, as
the case may be;
(2) The said intention to act dishonestly is in respect to movable property;
(3) The said property shall be taken out of possession of another person without his consent;
and
(4) he shall move such property in order to such taking.
Worked as a superintendent and a had a friend named Mr. Kumar who applied for a licence
for which asked for a declaration and went to ram kr. house he removed the papers and
replaced it with the duplicate one and file was back in the office.

Movable property – File

Taken – Yes it was
Out of possession – From the chief engineer it was taken
Without Consent – Was taken without consent
With dishonest intention – Removal of papers, deprivation of property is also constituting
dishonest intention.

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY (SECTION 403 & 404)

Section 403 - Dishonest misappropriation of property:
Ingredients:
1. Movable Property
2. Dishonest Intention
3. Appropriate or convert to use – it is criminal appropriation.

Explanation 1: Done only for limited time it is the said offence.

Explanation 2: Reasonable steps to be taken to find the owner.

Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras - Competition under a banner organizing puzzles

completed the registration could participate allotted prizes on mediatorial basis. He managed
to registration gather only half of the prize money. He is unable to give the prize money when
they have won the competition. He tried to give money to all the winner showing no
dishonest intention. He had no contract to not to pay the prize only from the registration fees,
at the very best it is a breach of contract.

Section 404
Dishonest misappropriation of property by deceased person at the time of death.
Merely keeping it for legal heir would not constitute.
Convert it for use would constitute Misappropriation from deceased person.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

Somnath Puri v. State of Maharashtra (1972 SC) – The accused, a Traffic Assistant in the
office of Indian Airlines Corporation demanded on behalf of the Corporation certain excess
amount for trunk charges from the passengers for reservation of seats. After the amount was
received, he passed receipts on behalf of the Corporation. He, however subsequently falsified
the counter foil receipts and fraudulently, misappropriated the excess amounts. The Supreme
Court held that the accused was guilty of criminal breach of trust.
Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Supreme Court has laid down two
basic requirements to prove conjointly to bring home the offence under Section 405:
 There must be an entrustment of property; In Ramaswami Nadar State of Madras,
Supreme Court held that if there is no entrustment then there can be no offence under
section 405.
 The accused must be actuated by dishonest intention, misappropriated or converted
the property to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it.
If one breaks the section, then the following ingredients are necessary to attract the operation
of section 405:
For criminal breach of property, the accused must be entrusted with some property or
dominion over the property; and
The person so entrusted (i.e., the accused) must-
 dishonestly misappropriate, or convert to his own use, that property, or;
 dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so
in violation of:
 any direction of law, prescribing the mode, in which such trust is to be discharged, or
 any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
Thus, the principal ingredients will be ‘entrustment’ and ‘dishonest misappropriation of the
property’.

SECTION 415 – Cheating

Section 415 defines Cheating
Property is not only subject matter for cheating. Two major ingredients:
1. Deception - presenting something untrue as true
2. Inducement - Qualified with the words fraudulently, dishonestly. Qualified with mens rea.
Intention is an essential ingredient of cheating.

Either of the two has to prevail:

1. Fraudulently or dishonestly (Wrongful loss or gain (Property)) deceived someone.
(Property is essential in this ingredient in this condition)
2. Intentionally inducing to do or omit to do anything which causes or is likely to cause
harm to mind, body, reputation, or property.
G.V. RAO VS L.H.V. PRASAD (1999) - G.V. Rao wants to get married to a woman from his
caste. He gets one proposal from the girl who presented herself to be of his caste. He marries
her. After 2 3 months the fact comes that she is not of the same caste. In this case it was
contended that there was a harm to his mind and reputation due to the act of the girl therefore
it is Cheating.

DEVNDRA SINGLA VS BALDEV SINGLA - Devendra is the accused and Baldev is the
complainant. DS is in the business of buying and selling of shares. He says to BS that he’ll
purchase 7000 shares in his wife’s company. There was receipt that was issued by the accused
(DS) that he has received 7000 shares. DS pays by cheque which is his wife’s cheque. The
wife had kept some signed unfilled cheques in the house. He signed it and gave it to BS. BS
presents it to the bank. It was dishonoured. Maya Singla had stopped the payment w.r.t the
cheque. DS knew that he didn’t have any funds in his account. There is property, inducement,
and deception as presenting that he has sufficient funds to pay the amount for the shares. This
was held as cheating.

AGGREVATED FORMS OF CHEATING:

Cheating by personation - Section 416
Cheating by knowledge - Section 418
Cheating by inducing property - section 420

SRI BHAGWAN SREEPADA MAHARAJ VS ANDRA PRADESH – The Appellant

claimed to possess occult faculties and attracted a number of devotees. He represented to
have divine healing powers through his touches, particularly of chronic diseases. The
complainant approached him for healing his 15-year-old daughter who was congenitally a
dumb child. The appellant assured the complainant that the little girl would be cured of her
impairment through his divine powers. He demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as consideration to
be paid in instalments. The complainant paid some amount, but even after a long time no
change could be seen in the girl. The Supreme Court observed and held that, if somebody
offers his prayer to God for healing the sick, there cannot normally be any element of fraud.
But if he represents to another that he has divine powers and either directly or indirectly
makes that other person believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to in
section 415, I.P.C. Anybody who responds to such inducement and pursuant to it gives the
inducers money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a victim of the
fraudulent representation. The court can in such a situation presume that the offence of
cheating falling within the ambit of section 420, I.P.C. has been committed. It is for the
accused, in such a situation, to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the appellant has committed
the offence under section 420, I.P.C.

27/03/24
Stolen property:
Section 410 – “transferred the possession”
Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh: robbery conducted at P’s place. Stolen goods were
found at Trimbak’s place. Trimbak and P were not on good terms. Allegations are that
Trimbal retained the goods and was accused under 411. The goods were found in his
verandah which was accessible by anyone and people would usually use it. he was acquitted
of the offense. (411)
412 – dacoity – aggravated form of 411
413 – habitually dealing with stolen property. Shivkumar’s judgement – merely purchasing
goods below the market price does not qualify it as an offense under 411.

Section 383 – Extortion

Ingredients –
1. fear of injury
2. Based on that fear they try to get ransom or get the victim separate from their money.
Ram Chandra v. State of UP 1957 – He has a son who goes outside everyday, but one day he
does not come back. Next day Ram Chandra receives a letter by post which said give me
10000 and don't tell the police, if you agree to give money put an = sign outside the house,
and if you don't agree put a cross. He puts an = sign and he waits but ultimately he goes to
the police. 2nd letter mentioned give the money or you will receive the head of the child. 3rd
letter said that why did you contact the police, are you not worried about the child, he says he
has contacts who are close to him and informs his every step. By this time he arranged 7000,
the police noted down all the serial numbers of all the notes that was supposed to be given to
the kidnapper. After 4th letter the money was kept in a place. It was found that the friend of
his was in the position of the money.

GURSHARAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB 1996 - The accused shifts in different

block, but victim lives in that same place, after accused shifted the victims received a letter
which had accused sign on it, the letter mentioned about accused asking for money for
purchasing weapons for terrorist activity. Liable under 387 as no money was transferred, it
was a mere attempt of extortion.

A brings a knife to the gathering and asks the father to sign blank papers otherwise he will
hurt himself.
01/04/24
Robbery – section 390
An individual-makes a plan to cross the boundary wall of a house and take some properties.
Reaches the house, opened the gate, and entered the house by open locking the doors. Tried
to make sure no one is in the house. He is carrying a knife. Reached a particular room and
taken hold of something. Suddenly he hears noise and someone comes out of a room carrying
a bat. The thief packs his bag and hurts the occupant with the knife while trying to escape.
First, establish theft. Then robbery. Here the person is liable for robbery with theft.
Venu vs Karnataka 2008 SC (robbery by extortion) – family is going on a scooter on a
highway. They are intercepted (blocked) by a car. They come out of the car and ask the
mother to part with the jewelry, wallet, etc. they part within their property. The accused
persons used a knife and put it on the neck of the father and the son and asked for the scooter.
They did part with the scooter.
There is an element of fear in both. Which is intentional and there is parting away with the
property and dishonest intention.
The differentiating factor is that the person committing extortion is present in front of the
victim but not in theft. And in extortion,2 there is fear of instant death, instant injury, or
instant hurt.
The victim and accused should be physically near for there to be real fear. They were guilty
of extortion by robbery. Robbery need not be theft or extortion but can be a hybrid of the two.
Phool kumar v. state of Delhi 1975 SC – what is the meaning of weapon used. The SC held
that the weapon has to be in the vision to cause fear. Interpreting the word “uses” in 397. It
can be used to instil fear. This judgement ws relied in Ashfaq judgement (bare act).
Harish Chandra v. up – train has stopped at a station
Shyam Bihari v. up -

08/04/24
Criminal trespass – S. 441 – could be for any property.
Punishment for criminal trespass – S. 447
House trespass – S. 442 - – only with respect to criminal trespass of those property that could
be used as a dwelling. Includes warehouse.
Lurking house – trespass – S. 443
House breaking – S. 445