NOTES

CHAPTER 17 :OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

THEFT: (section 378-382)

• To constitute the offence of theft there are five important elements(Prafulla Sarika v State of Assam)
1. Movable property
2. In possession of anyone
3. Dishonest intention
4. Without Consent
5. Moving in order to take it
• Movable property:
1. Defined u/sec 22Include corporeal property of every descriptionExcludes land and things: attached to
the earth; or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.)
2. Hence a house cannot be subject to theft but its materials can be.
3. Animals (illustration b and c):
Cattle can be subject of theft but wild animals can’t be as they are ‘Ferae Naturae’ hence they can’t be
an absolute property but when killed upon the soil they can become an absolute property of the owner
of the soil.
4. Aircraft: K.N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan( 1957)
The offence was committed at Indian Airforce academy Jodhpur,one trainee Philips was discharged
from the academy on 13th May, 1952 for misconduct. He was suppose to leave by train but his friend
Mehra was due for a flight training. On 14th May at 5 am they took off in another plane without any
authorisation and without any formalities. Same noon they landed on Pakistani.e 100 miles away from
Indian Pakistan border. They informed the high commissioner of Pakistan that they had force landed
and they had lost their way. They were sent back to Delhi and were prosecuted for theft as they had a
dishonest intention to take the plane.
5. Electricity:
Though governed by Indian electricity act,1910 would also be an offence under IPC.
6. Content of a document: termed as a ‘corporeal property’ and is included in the definition of section 22.
Birla Corp. v. Adventez Investment (2019) SC stated that photocopying of replication of a document
can amount to theft of information as it can result in wrongful loss to one person and wrongful gain
to another. But intention is to be kept in mind.
• Possession:
1. Difference between possession and custody: possession is demure and defacto and defacto possession
is called custody.
Eg. A has given a dinner party so the plates and other things are on the table are in his possession but
are time to time in custody of the guests and servants.
Eg. If a woman gives money to a person standing near the ticket counter and he runs away with that
money. He had custody of that money and the ticket.
2. If X steals from A and Z steals from X then in absence of X,A can maintain a prosecution against Z(
theft from Vicarious possession)
3. Joint possession: if several joint owners and any one is guilty of dishonestly taking exclusive
possession , he will be guilty of theft.
4. Constructive possession:
Theft by owner of his own property: when there is a dishonest removal of thing from possession of a
person who has a rightful claim to be in possession of it. He would be guilty of theft. Theft through
constructive possession (ie. Authority over an object without having actual possession.)
• Dishonest Intention :It exists when the taker intends to cause wrongful gain to one person and wrongful
loss to another. And must exist at the time of moving the property
Eg. If a creditor took out movable property from a debtor’s possession without his consent and with the
intention of coercing him to pay back the money. It is theft.
• Without consent (illus m and n)
• Moving or taking-there must be moving of the property with an intention to take it. As the essence of the
offence consists in the fraudulent taking, that taking must have commenced.

EXTORTION(section 383-389)

• Important ingredients(Dhananjay Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, 2007)

1. Intentionally putting a person in fear
2. Purpose of which is dishonestly inducing a person in fear
3. To deliver property or valuable security
• It is an intermediary between theft and robbery
• ‘Fear’
1. Is a question of fact
2. On one hand it shall not be confined to bodily injury and on the other hand it must be of such a nature
that is likely to induce a person to part with his property against his will and to put him under temporary
suspension of power.( Re Donolly)
• ‘Injury’- shall not necessarily be a bodily injury but to mind ,reputation or property of to another person
he is interested in.(Abdul Majid v. State of Gujarat, 2007)
Romesh Chandra Arora v. State(1960)
Accused wrote letters to X enclosing a picture of her daughter and were of a character if made public
would compromise the reputation of the girl as well as the father /family and he demanded hush money.
Was convicted under this section and section 506 IPC.
• R.S Nayak v AR Antulay(1986) the respondent was the CM of Maharashtra and during that time he formed
7 trusts one of them being ‘Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan Fund. The CM demanded that unless the
sugar -cooperatives who placed several demands before the govt, made contribution to IGPP their demands
pending would not be acceded to. This was held as extortion.
• ‘Fear’ under extortion: is a question of fact
In Re Donolly’s it was held that one hand fear shall not be confined to bodily injury and on the other hand
it must be of such a nature that likely to induce a person to part with the property against his will and to
put him under temporary suspension of power.

Section 511
Ingredients of section 511:

1. He had an intention or mens rea to commit the contemplated or intended act.

2. He must have taken some step or some step towards commission of the offence I.e more than preparation.
3. For reasons beyond comprehension or control failed to commit the intended offence.
This was held in Abhiyanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)

Accused applied to Patna University for the permission to re-appear as a private candidate in MA degree
examination. To show his eligibility he attached certain documents attached to it and certain certificates related
to this signed by the inspector and headmaster. How university was informed that certificates were false and
he was never a teacher.He was prosecuted for forgery and attempt to cheat.SC stated that his stage of
preparation was already completed and the moment he had dispatched the application he had entered the realm
of attempt.

Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021)

State of Maharashtra v Yakub Mhd Yakub (1980) accused was arrested by officials of the central excise
department for attempting to smuggle silver out of India.based on a secret information he was caught when
the truck arrived and kept some small and heavy parcels on the ground and sounds of sea crafts were also
heard. The court convicted them of attempting to smuggle.
PROXIMITY RULE: The proximity shall be not wrt time and act but with respect to Intention. The court
held that they had all the intention to commit an act and it was intervention of offenders which did not allow
them to commit the act. Hence proximity refers to sequence of act leading to and closely connected to
commission of an offence.
Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
Refers to the possibility of a person who having made preparation to commit an offence actually backs out of
it owing to change of heart or out of fear or compulsion.

ROBBERY AND DACOITY(section 390-402)

ROBBERY

• Means a felonious taking from the person of another or in the presence against the will by violence or
putting hi under fear
• Chief distinguishing factor or element in the robbery is presence of imminent fear of violence. (Karali
Prasad Dutta v East India Company,1928)
• Can’t be robbery if there is no theft of extortion and it is an aggravated form of both.
• ROBBERY= THEFT+ FEAR OF VIOLENCE OR INSTANT VIOLENCE( OF DEATH, HURT OR
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT) OR
EXTORTION + PRESENCE OF THE OFFENDER+FEAR OF INSTANT
VIOLENCE+IMMEDIATE DELIVERY
• When theft is robbery?
If in order to faciliate the committing of theft or carrying away or attempting to carry away the stolen
property, the offender voluntarily causes attempts to cause death, hurt or fear of instant death, hurt or
wrongful restraint.
• When is extortion robbery?
If at the time of committing extortion the offender is on the immediate presence of victim and puts the
victim under fear of instant D,H or WR and is able to obtain the property.
• Emperor v Darya Singh(1933)
Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits it is not necessary to prove that either each individual
member of the gang has habitually committed robbery or has taken part in robbery.
• Aggravated form of robbery: section 394 (Aslam v state of Rajasthan, 2008)
Section 394 is more serious offence than section 392 as this section classifies the persons into 2: those
who actually causes hurt and those who do not actually cause hurt but are ‘jointly concerned’ in the
commission of offence and imposes a liability over the latter. Hence they become liable for the hurt
caused by former even if they did not participate in causing hurt and had no knowledge of its
probability.
DACOITY:
Essential ingredients:
 1. 5 or more people
2. Act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery
3. 5 or more persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit or those present
and didn’t participate

5 or more persons:

• Soheb bhai Yusuf bhai v State of Gujrat( 2017)

Conviction of less than 5 persons u/sec395 is possible only when it is shown or not disputed that there
were 5 or more persons involved in the commission of offence
Conjointly

• It is neither joint liability nor constructive liability. This means that all 5 shall act in a concerted
manner.The word 'conjointly' means united or in association.
• five persons should act in a concerted manner participating in the transaction.
• Eg. If one person did not actually take part in robbery but went with one of the dacoits to borrow a
boat and was left there and asked to wait for other dacoits. He was held for aiding and not for
DACOITY.
• In Aslam v State of Rajasthan,
the Supreme Court, reiterating that offence under section 394 is more serious than that under section
392, has clarified that s 394 not only classifies the persons into two:
(i) those who act usually cause hurt, and
(ii) those who do not actually cause hurt but are 'jointly concerned' in the commission of the offence
of robbery but also imposes liability on the latter.
They become liable for the hurt caused by the former even though they did not participate in causing
the hurt or had no knowledge of its likelihood or probability.

• Hence
1. 5 or more persons attemption to commit robbery=Dacoity
2. 5 or more persons committing robbery= Dacoity
3. 1 committing robbery+ 4 present and aiding=Dacoity
4. 1attempting robbery + 4 present and aiding attempt= Dacoity
• Shyam Behari v State of UP(1957)
Rafiq Ahmed vs State of UP(2011)
If one of the dacoits commits murder while being chased the question is whether the others can be
convicted under section 396. It was held that each one of them will be vicariously liable for murder
even though others did not participate.
• Section 399: making preparation to commit dacoity:
Malkait Singh v State of Punjab(1970) generally preparation is not punishable but dacoity is an
exception .preparation consists of devising a plan or arranging means necessary for commission of the
act.
• Section 400: belonging to a gang of dacoits
Not necessary that the person should have done any overt act of committing robbery or dacoity. Mere
association of gang is sufficient. The word ‘belongs’ implies something more than mere casual
association.
CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION(section 403-404)

• The offence is carved out of theft. It is when possession is innocently acquired but subsequent intention
or knowledge the retention becomes unlawful. The term misappropriation implies misappropriation of
property in possession of someone else.
• misappropriation of property can take place if that property is in nobody's possession.
• The essence of the offence of misappropriation is putting to own use or converting to own use another's
property. There cannot be misappropriation of one's own property.
• Misappropriation is to take possession of property and putting it to unauthorised or wrongful use .ie.
Putting someone else’s property to your own use.
• The initial taking is neutral or innocent but the later it is completed by an intent to deprave the master
of his property.
• Essential ingredients:
1. Property must be of another
No misappropriation if ‘Res Nullius’. But there can be misappropriation of ones’s own property.
(Velji Raghavji Patel v Maharashtra, 1965)
Ramesh Chander Sanyal v. Hiru Mondal(1890): an idol in a temple is capable of holding property
apart from pujari and the latter is hence capable of being guilty of misappropriation if
misappropriates it.
Mahadev v Govind(1930): a property of no appreciated value found on the road and an attempted
sale of it with a view to use its proceeds is not misappropriation.
2. Converts to his own use: means dealing with the property of another as if his own property.
Emperor v. PhulChand Dube(1929): mere retention of property is not sufficient a misappropriate
conversion shall be there.
3. Dishonest Intention: Criminal misappropriation takes place not when one has innocently come into
the possession of a thing, but when by a subsequent change of intention, or from the knowledge of
some new fact with which the party was not previously acquainted, he keeps it, after which the
retaining becomes wrongful and fraudulent.
• Temporary injunction : If a person appropriates to himself the property of another and puts it to his
own use temporarily and then restores to its owner. It would still amount to misappropriation.
Eg. When judgment debtor harvest standing crops when they are under order of attachment.
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST(section 405-409)

• Deepak Gaba v state of UP(2023) essential ingredients:

1. Entrusting any person with property or dominion over property
2. The person entrusted:
a. Dishonestly misappropriates and and converts it for his own use
b. Dishonestly uses or dispose the property
c. Just misappropriation and violation shall be done in violation of the trust
• Ashok basak v state of maharashtra(2023)
Two distinct parts are involved in the commission
A. Consists of an obligation of trust
B. Misappropriates or deals with it dishonestly or converts it contrary to that trust.
• Entrustment: an arrangement where one person is authorised to deal with the property or benefit of
another. As the title to the offence itself suggests, entrustment of property is an essential requirement
before any offence under this section takes place. The language of the section is very wide. The words
used are 'in any manner entrusted with property'. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds--whether
to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. It
 embraces all cases in which a thing handed over by one person to another for specific purpose. The
term 'entrusted' is wide enough to include in its ambit all cases in which property is voluntarily handed
over for specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed of contrary to the terms on which possession has
been handed over. Entrustment need not be express, it may be implied.
• Property applies to movables and immovables.
• Having a dominion over the property: connotes control over the property. Eg a director of a company
who is a trustee of the company’s assets has dominion over them.
• Dishonest misappropriation is the essence of this section. Dishonesty is, as defined in s 24, IPC,
causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to a person. The meaning of wrongful gain and wrongful loss
is given in s 23,IPC. In order to constitute an offence, it is not enough to establish that the money has
not been accounted for or mismanaged. It has to be established that the accused has dishonestly put
the property to his own use or to some unauthorised use. Dishonest intention to misappropriate is a
crucial fact to be proved to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust.
CHEATING(section 415-420)

• For the offence of cheating there should be ‘deception’ and under that deception the person is induced
to deliver property. Hence delivery of property is a result of fraudulent and dishonest means.
• In Ram Jas v State of Uttar Pradesh and Archana Rana v. State (2021) the Supreme Court
enumerated the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating as follows:
1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
2. (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which
he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
3. in cases covered by (2) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
• State v. Ramados Naidu (1977)
Accused obtained loan from the land development bank for digging new wells in their agricultural
lands and purchasing new engine oils without actually doing so. Though the bank did not suffer any
loss and money was recovered by security on the movable property, but they were still convicted under
section 415 and 420 as they had exercised deception.
• ‘Deceit’
1. As to what act constitutes deception, has been held to be a matter of evidence in each case and
dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the element of deception has
been held to be the first stage of establishing the offence of cheating. Thus, where there is no
evidence of deception, then the offence of cheating has been held not to be established.
2. A person is said to be deceived when he is led to believe what is untrue and for that accused must
have made a false pretence or representation as to existing facts and there shall be an intention to
defraud.
3. Also deception must be practiced before property is delivered.
• ‘Inducing/Inducement’
1. Leading to delivery of property or doing an act or omission.
2. Mere deceit is not sufficient.
3. The effect of fraudulent or dishonest act must be such that Induces a person to deliver some
property or to do an act or omission.
4. Mere deceit or committing something fraudulently or dishonestly is not sufficient. The effect of
the fraudulent or dishonest act must be such that it induces the person deceived to deliver property
 or do something (in the form of an act or omission). Thus, the element of inducement leads either
to delivery of property or doing of an act or omission to do anything.
• Deception and cheating in connection with false promise of marriage for sexual benefit:
Debish Shankar v. State of West Bengal(1989): its is necessary to prove that promise to marry
inducing complaint to have sexual intercourse was false when made if the intention to cheat has been
developed later.
CHEATING BY PERSONATION

A person is said to cheat by personation-

1. By pretending to be some other person
2. By knowing or substituting one person for another
3. Representing that he or other person is a person other than he or she really is

K. Rama Rao(1960): Not necessary to prove who is impersonated as it could be imaginary and non-
existentHowever, what has to be established is that the accused impersonated somebody, or else the offence is
not established

MISCHIEF(section 425)

• Corresponds with ‘Malicious Injury to property’ under English Law

• Based on the Maxim- ‘SIC UTERE TUO ALIENUM NON LAEDAS’ which means use your own
property so as not to injure your neighbour’s property
• The Actus reus involves- Destruction of Property and the Mens Rea-doer’s intent to cause, knowledge
that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to public or to any person
• Does not apply to acts that are negligent or accidental
• Covers both movable and immovable property
• Essential ingredients:
1. An intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage
2. Causing destruction of some property or any material change in it
3. Such change must destroy or diminish it’s utility or injuring its effects. Also destruction or
domination of property shall be an immediate or proximate consequence.

Sukha Singh (1905): Tearing of Postal receipt is a wrongful loss.

FORGERY(section 463)

• In Roman law, it was enacted by the lex corenelia de falsis, that a person who falsely writes, seals,
publicly reads, or foists in a forged will or other document or makes, cuts, moulds, a spurious seal
wilfully and maliciously should be punished
• The offence consists of a material false making or alteration of a writing or a document of some legal
significance with the intent to defraud.it is making a false document with a a criminal intention to
cause injury.
• Forgery as defined in the Code is made up of two main provisions. Section 463 defines forgery as the
making of a false document or false electronic record with any of the intentions noted therein. Section
464 defines the making of a false document or false electronic record sufficient to be brought it within
the cover of forgery.
 • There is one component common to both sections, that of fraud. To constitute forgery, the accused
must have made a false document or an electronic record or part of such a document or an electronic
record.
• The essential ingredients of 'forgery' as defined in s 463 can be enumerated as as:
(i) the making of a false document or false electronic record or part of it
(ii) such making should be with intent to:
(a) cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or
(b) support any claim or title; or
(c) cause any person to part with property; or
(d) enter into any express or implied contract; or
(e) commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
• Ram Narayan Popli v CBI,
Court stressed that the first essential of the offence of forgery is the making of a false document with
an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. Every
forgery postulates a false document, either in whole or part, made dishonestly or fraudulently. In order
to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with corresponding loss on the other.
The term 'fraudulent' does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. Deprivation
of property, actual or intended, does not constitute an essential element of intention to defraud. Intent
to defraud a person has to be there.

SECTION 464: MAKING A FALSE DOCUMENT OR AN ELECTRONIC RECORD

• The person who makes a false document or false electronic record commits forgery. It is essential that
the false document or the false electronic record, when made, must either appear on its face to be, or
be in fact one, which, if true, would possess some legal validity. In other words, the document or the
electronic record must be legally capable of effectivating the fraud intended.
• It is not necessary that the document should be legal evidence in the strict sense of the word.
• Section 464 explains as to what amounts to making a false document or false electronic record. It
describes three ways in which a false document or false electronic record can be made:
(1) By making, sealing, signing or executing a document or a part thereof; or by making or transmitting
any electronic record or a part thereof; or by affixing any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(2) By alteration of a document or an electronic record; or
(3) By causing a person, who is innocent of the contents or nature of the alteration done to a document
or an electronic record, to sign, seal or execute.
• Vimla(Dr) v. Delhi Administration (1963)
Dr. Vimla purchased a motor car with her own money in the name of her minor daughter, Nalini (6
months) and got an insurance policy in her name by signing in minor’s name. She received
compensation for the claims made by her in respect of two accidents. The claims were true and she
received money after signing the claims. The insurance company later brought charges of forgery
against her. It was held that she did it receive any additional benefit fro the company and the insurance
company would not have acted any differently if it would have been her instead of her daughter.
Making a false document or an electronic record means creation of a a document or an electronic
record or part of execution of a document or an electronic record or signing a document fraudulently
or dishonestly.
• Alteration of Birth dates- intention of the accused is to take advantage Gullu Nageshwar Rao v. State
of Andhra Pradesh(1992)
• An ante-date documents also amounts to forgery (Rao Shiv Bahadur v. State of UP, 1954)
• Forging a Document by Affixing Own Signature
• Whether a person can forge a document by signing it himself, was an issue which arose in Bharat
Heeralal Sheth v Jaysin Amarsinh Sampat (1997)
In this case, the complainant had been buying and selling shares through the accused, who was running
a share-brokering firm. The allegation was that the accused owed a large sum of money to the
complainant. When the complainant went to the office of the accused to ask for it, the accused produced
a back dated bill, signed by the accused, showing that the complainant had actually suffered a loss due
to certain transactions in a previous period amounting to Rs 30,700. According to the complainant, the
above bill was false and fabricated and created by the accused in order to avoid making payments to
the complainant.It was the argument of the accused that he had not made the document with the
intention of causing it to be believed that it had been made with or by the authority of some other
person, as he accepted having issued the bill in dispute.