THEFT UNDER IPC

 

                                           THEFT UNDER IPC

INTRODUCTION

Section 378 of IPC defines 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”. 

ESSENTIALS OF THEFT

 

1. Dishonest intention to take property.

2. The property must be movable.

3. The property should be taken out of possession of another person.

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

5. There should be the taking of the property.

 

Dishonest intention

 

It is provided in the definition that there must be a dishonest intention for an act to be considered as theft. Section 24 of IPC has provided that dishonestly means the intention of wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Section 23 of the IPC provides the definition of wrongful gain and wrongful loss. Wrongful gain means gaining any property unlawfully, the person who is losing the property is the legal owner of the property. Wrongful loss means the loss brought about by unlawful means. A person is said to have gained wrongfully when he acquires or gains such property wrongfully and a person is said to have lost wrongfully when he is deprived or kept out of his own property. In Ramratan v state of Bihar case, the court held that when a person seizes cattle on the ground that they were trespassing on his land and causing damage to his crops. He has right of land and crop. Hence seizing of the cattle is not a theft.Ramcharans case (1898)case, Ramcharan sold certain trees to x with complete knowledge that those trees belongs to c and x was not knowing it. The court held that Ramcharan is liable for trial under offence of theft.

 

The property must be movable

 

A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft, it becomes capable of being the subject of theft a is severed from the earth. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v state of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, case, and the court held that temporary removal of an official file from the office of a chief engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two amounts to the offence of theft. In state of Himachal Pradesh v Prem Singh, (1989), case, the prosecution proved that the government is the owner of the forest and the trees were cut down by the accused .The court held that it is theft.

 

It should be taken out of possession of another person

 

The property must be in the possession of another person from where it is removed. There is no theft of wild animals, birds or fish while at large, but there is a theft of tamed animals. A finds a ring lying cm the high road not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it commas no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

In State of Maharashtra v vishwanath,AIR 1979 SC 1825 case, the court held that the transfer of possession of a movable property without the consent of the person in possession need not,however,be permanent or for considerable length of time nor is it necessary that the property should be found in possession of the accused. Even a transient transfer is sufficient to meet the requirement of section 378.

 

 It should be taken without consent of that person

 

The consent may be express or implied and may be given either of the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose express or implied authority. A being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent for the purpose of merely reading it (and with the intention of returning it).

Here it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft. A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was A’s impression. A has not corn-named theft. The position is not the same if A is the paramour of Z’s wife and she gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has not authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.

In k.N.Mehera v state of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 369 case, the court held that absence of the person’s consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time are essential ingredients of theft.

There must be some removal of the properly in order to accomplish the taking of it

 

A puts a bait for dogs, in his pocket, and induces Z’s dog to follow ill Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take die 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. Again A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move. A has committed theft of the treasure. Similarly, A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here, A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.

By,

Asha Sebastian.