Offences against

Property-I
By: Hifajatali Sayyed
 Theft

• Sec 378 of 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 in order to such taking, is said to commit
theft.
• Eg: A puts a bait for dog in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to
follow it. Here, if A's intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of
Z's possession without Z's consent, A has committed theft as soon as
Z's dog has begun to follow A.
 Theft

• Ingredients of Theft:

1. There must be dishonest intention to take the property.

2. The property must be movable.

3. It should be taken out of the possession of another person.

4. It should be taken without the consent of that person.

5. There must be some moving of the property in order to take it.

 Theft

1. There must be dishonest intention to take the property.

• The word dishonestly is defined u/s 24 of IPC.

• It states that whoever does anything with the intention of causing

wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
• Sec 23 defines “Wrongful gain”.—“Wrongful gain” is gain by
unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not
legally entitled.
• “Wrongful loss”.—“Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means
of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
 Theft

2. The property must be movable.

• Sec 22 of IPC defines “movable property” as to include corporeal
property of every description, except land and things
attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything
which is attached to the earth.
• A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable
property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being
the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
• Bhaiyalal vs State of MP (1993 CrLJ 29)

• Here the Court held that the act of cutting trees standing on
government land amounts to theft u/s 378 of IPC.
 Theft

 Avtar Singh vs. State (AIR 1965 SC 666)

• In this case, the accused was charged for having committed theft of
electricity.
• Here the Supreme Court held that electricity is an energy and cannot
be considered as movable property and that sec 378 by itself would
not include a theft of electricity.
• However, theft of electricity is deemed to be an offence under IPC as
sec 39 of Electricity Act enables punishment u/s 379 of IPC.
 Theft

3. It should be taken out of the possession of another

person:
• The word possession is not defined in IPC.

• A movable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he

is so situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it.
• Salmond describes possession, as a relationship between a person
and a thing, the test for determining whether a person is in
possession of anything is whether he is in general control of it.
• Eg: A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z
occupies. Here the ring is in Z's possession, and if A dishonestly
removes it, A commits theft.
 Theft

 Pyare Lal Bhargawa vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC

1094)
• In this case, the accused took a file from the government office to his
house for a day and made it available to a person to facilitate the
removal of some papers and insertion of some.
• Thereafter the file was kept in the office.

• Here the issue before the Court was whether the act amounted to
theft.
 Theft

 Pyare Lal Bhargawa vs. State of Rajasthan Cont…

• Here the Court held that when the file was unlawfully taken away
from the department, he deprived the department of the possession
of file and caused wrongful loss to the department.
• So it was held that it amounted to an offence of theft though it was
merely temporary dispossession.
 Punishment for Theft:

• 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.
 Extortion

• Sec 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”.
• Eg: A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z
gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has
committed extortion.
 Extortion

• Ingredients of Extortion:

1. Intentionally puts any person in fear of injury.

• The factor of fear of injury shows that the consent of victim is not
free consent

2. Dishonestly induces a person who is put in fear to deliver

property.
• Dishonest inducement means that a person would not have agreed
to give his property which causes him a wrongful loss.
 Extortion

• Punishment for Extortion:

• Sec 384 provides punishment for extortion which states that

whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.
 Extortion

 Romesh Chandra Arora vs State (AIR 1960 SC 154)

• In this case, the accused had written letters to one ‘X’, enclosing the
photograph of the daughter of X in the nude state and which
if made public, would undoubtedly compromise the reputation of
the girl as well as the father.
• The accused demanded money from X and threatened him
stating that he would circulate the photograph to the
relatives of the girl if the money is not paid. So the father paid the
money because of threat.
• Here the Court convicted the accused for extortion.
 Difference

Theft Exortion
1. Consent is not obtained. 1. Consent obtained by fear.

2. Theft con be committed only 2. Extortion can be committed

with respect to movable with respect to movable and
property. immovable property.

3. No element of Threat. 3. Element of Threat.

4. In theft, the accused takes the 4. In extortion, usually the

property himself. property is delivered to the
accused person.
 Robbery

• Sec 390 states that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

• When theft is robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the

committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying
away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft,
the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to
any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant
death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
• Eg: A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels
from Z's clothes, without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft,
and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused
wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
 Robbery

• Sec 390 states that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

• When theft is robbery.— (Ingredients)

• It states that in order to commit theft or committing theft or

carrying away or attempt to carry away property obtained by
theft.
• If a person voluntarily causes or attempts to cause;

a) Death, hurt or wrongful restraint or

b) Fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful

restraint.
 Robbery

• When Extortion is robbery.—Extortion is “robbery” if the

offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of
the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that
person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in
fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the
thing extorted.
• Eg: A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse.
Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse
from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of
committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed
robbery.
 Robbery

• When Extortion is robbery.— (Ingredients)

• The accused at the time of committing extortion is in the

immediate presence of victim.
• Puts the victim in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of
instant wrongful restraint. (Such fear can be to he person or
some other person)
• Out of this fear there is delivery of property.
 Robbery

 Punishment for Robbery.— (Sec 392)

• Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous

imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on
the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment
may be extended to fourteen years.
 Robbery

 Harinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1993 SC 91)

• In this case, the accused was a gunman in Roadways Transport

Corporation.
• Here the accused caused injuries to the cashier in the same
corporation and confined him in a room and bolted it from
outside.
• Thereafter the accused was arrested.

• Here the Court convicted the accused for robbery.

 Robbery

 Trilok Singh vs. Satya Deo (AIR 1979 SC 850)

• In this case, the complainant had purchased a truck on hire-

purchase basis from Finance Corporation.
• The complainant paid the first two monthly instalments and
defaulted on the payment for third instalment.
• According to the complainant, the accused in a highhanded manner
came to his house and in spite of protest by his wife, forcibly, under
threat of arms, removed the truck and thus were said to have
committed the offence of robbery.
 Robbery

 Trilok Singh v Satya Deo Cont…..

• Here, the Supreme Court held that the version of the

complainant was very untrustworthy.
• It held that the seizure of truck was a bona fide right
exercised by the accused on the failure of the complainant
to pay the third instalment.
• Nobody was hurt on the side of the complainant. Under these
circumstances, it was held that no offence of robbery was made out.
 Dacoity

• Sec 391 defines dacoity as:

• When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit

a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly
committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons
present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or
more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to
commit “dacoity”.
 Dacoity

 Ingredients of dacoity:

• Five or more person must act in association.

• Such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.

• The five person must consist of those who themselves commit or

attempt to commit robbery or those who are present and aid
the principal actors in the commission of such robbery.
 Dacoity

 Punishment for dacoity: (Sec 395)

• Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment

for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
 Dacoity

 Ram Shanker Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 441 )

• In this case, six persons were charged with committing dacoity.

Three out of six persons were acquitted.
• The charges frame did not indicate that along with the six persons
there were other unknown persons with them, who had committed
dacoity. Since three persons were acquitted, there were only three
other persons left as the persons involved with the crime.
• Hence, it was held that the three persons could be convicted
only to the lesser offence of robbery under section 392, IPC,
and not for dacoity under section 395, IPC.