Specific offences against property

By- Gaurav shukla

B.com. LL.B(H)
Faculty of Law, DSMNRU
 Of Offences Against Property
• Section 378- Theft:
– Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable 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.
• Explanation 1
– 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.
• Explanation 2
– A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.
• Explanation 3
– A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from
moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
• Explanation 4
– A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to
move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
 More…
Explanation 5
The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may
be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that
purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustrations:
• (a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the
tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed
the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft.
• (b) A puts a bait for dogs 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.
• (c) 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.
 More…
• (i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop.
A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully
detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by
force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have
committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as much
as what he did was not done dishonestly.
• (j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch
lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession,
with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he
commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
• (k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession
without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he
commits theft, though the watch is his own property in as much as he takes it
dishonestly.
• (l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, without Z’s consent,
with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for
its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.
Taking need not be permanent?

• It is not necessary that the taking should be of a

permanent character, or that the accused should
have derived any profit.
• A temporary removal of an office 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; Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094.
Extortion
• Section 383. Extortion: 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 property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits "extortion".
• Illustrations:
• (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z give him money. He thus
induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
• (b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and
deliver to A promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note.
A has committed extortion.
• (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign and deliver to B bond
binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sing and
deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
• (d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a
blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed
may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.
 Robbery
• Section 390. Robbery: 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.
• 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.
• Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put
the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint.
Illustration,
• (a) 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.
• (b) A meets Z on the high roads, 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.
• (c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to
fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence delivers his
purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant
hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.
• (d) A obtains property from Z by saying—“Your child is in the hands of my gang,
and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”. This is
extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of
the instant death of his child.
Dacoity
• Section 391. Dacoity: 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".
• When robbery is either committed or an attempt to commit it is
made by five or more persons then all such persons, who are
present or aiding in its commission or in an attempt to commit
it, would commit the offence of dacoity; State of Maharashtra v.
Joseph Mingel Koli, (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).
Thank you…