Theft
In general, theft is committed when a person's property is taken without his consent by someone. For example, A enters the house of B and takes B's watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself. A commits theft. However, besides the ordinary meaning conveyed by the word theft, the scope of theft is quite wide. Section 378of IPC defines theft as follows -
Section 378 - 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.
Based on this definition, the following are the essential constituents of Theft –
In general, theft is committed when a person's property is taken without his consent by someone. For example, A enters the house of B and takes B's watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself. A commits theft. However, besides the ordinary meaning conveyed by the word theft, the scope of theft is quite wide. Section 378of IPC defines theft as follows -
Section 378 - 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.
Based on this definition, the following are the essential constituents of Theft –
1.
Dishonest
intention to take property - There must be
dishonest intention on the part of the offender. As defined in Section 24 of IPC, dishonestly means that there must be a wrongful loss to
one or wrongful gain to another. For example, A quietly takes money from B's
purse for his spending. Here, A causes wrongful loss to B and is thus guilty of
theft. However,if the intention of the offender is not to cause a wrongful loss
or wrongful gain, he does not commit theft even if he takes the property
without consent. For example, A gives his watch to B for repairing. B takes the
watch to his shop. A, who does not owe any debt to B for which B has the right
to retain the watch, follows B and forcibly takes back the watch. Here, A does
not commit theft because he has no dishonest intention. Similarly, when A,
believing, in good faith, a property in possession of B, to be his, takes it
from B, it is not theft.
In K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 S. C. 369, SC held that proof of intention to cause permanent deprivation of property to the owner, or to obtain a personal gain is not necessary for the purpose of establishing dishonest intention. Thus, In Pyarelal Bhargava vs State AIR 1963, a govt. employee took a file from the govt. office, presented it to B, and brought it back to the office after two days. It was held that permanent taking of the property is not required, even a temporary movement of the property with dishonest intention is enough and thus this was theft.
In K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 S. C. 369, SC held that proof of intention to cause permanent deprivation of property to the owner, or to obtain a personal gain is not necessary for the purpose of establishing dishonest intention. Thus, In Pyarelal Bhargava vs State AIR 1963, a govt. employee took a file from the govt. office, presented it to B, and brought it back to the office after two days. It was held that permanent taking of the property is not required, even a temporary movement of the property with dishonest intention is enough and thus this was theft.
2.
Property
must be movable - An immovable property
cannot be stolen or moved from the possession so a theft cannot happen in
respect of an immovable property. However, as per Explanation 1 of section 378, as
long as a thing is attached to earth, not being movable, is not subject of
theft. However, as soon as it is severed from the earth, it is capable of being
the subject of theft. Further, Explanation 2 says that a moving affected by the same act
that causes severance, may be theft.
For example, a tree on A's land is not capable of being the subject of theft. However, if B, with an intention to take the tree, cuts the tree, he commits theft as soon as the tree is severed from the earth.
In White's case, 1853, a person introduced another pipe in a gas pipeline and consumed the gas bypassing the meter. Gas was held to be a movable property and he was held guilty of theft.
For example, a tree on A's land is not capable of being the subject of theft. However, if B, with an intention to take the tree, cuts the tree, he commits theft as soon as the tree is severed from the earth.
In White's case, 1853, a person introduced another pipe in a gas pipeline and consumed the gas bypassing the meter. Gas was held to be a movable property and he was held guilty of theft.
3.
Property
must be taken out of possession of another - The property must be in possession of someone.
A property that is not in possession of anybody cannot be a subject of theft.
For example, wild dogs cannot be a subject of theft and so if someone takes a
wild dog, it will not be theft. It is not important whether the person who
possess the thing is the rightful owner of that thing or not. If the thing is
moved out of mere possession of someone, it will be theft. For example, A, a
coin collector, steals some coins from B, a fellow coin collector. A
finds out that they were his coins that were stolen earlier. Here, even though
B was not the rightful owner of the coins, he was still in possession of them
and so A is guilty of theft.
In HJ Ransom vs Triloki Nath 1942, A had taken a bus on hire purchase from B under the agreement that in case of default B has the right to take back the possession of the bus. A defaulted, and thereupon, B forcibly took the bus from C, who was the driver of the bus. It was held that the C was the employee of A and thus, the bus was in possession of A. Therefore, taking the bus out of his possession was theft.
In HJ Ransom vs Triloki Nath 1942, A had taken a bus on hire purchase from B under the agreement that in case of default B has the right to take back the possession of the bus. A defaulted, and thereupon, B forcibly took the bus from C, who was the driver of the bus. It was held that the C was the employee of A and thus, the bus was in possession of A. Therefore, taking the bus out of his possession was theft.
4.
Property
must be taken without consent - In order to constitute theft, property must be taken without
the consent of person possessing it. As per Explanation 5,
consent can be express or implied. For example, A, a good friend of B, goes to
B's library and takes a book without express consent of B, with the intention
of reading it and returning it. Here, A might have conceived that he had
B's implied consent to take the book and so he is not guilty of theft.
Similarly, when A asks for charity from B's wife, and when she gives A some
clothes belonging to B, A may conceive that she has the authority to give B's
clothes and so A is not guilty of theft.
In Chandler's case, 1913, A and B were both servants of C. A suggested B to rob C's store. B agreed to this and procured keys to the store and gave them to A, who then made duplicate copies. At the time of the robbery, they were caught because B had already informed C and to catch A red handed, C had allowed B to accompany A on the theft. Here, B had the consent of C to move C's things but A did not and so A was held guilty of theft.
In Chandler's case, 1913, A and B were both servants of C. A suggested B to rob C's store. B agreed to this and procured keys to the store and gave them to A, who then made duplicate copies. At the time of the robbery, they were caught because B had already informed C and to catch A red handed, C had allowed B to accompany A on the theft. Here, B had the consent of C to move C's things but A did not and so A was held guilty of theft.
5.
Physical
movement of the property is must - The property must be physically moved. It is not necessary
that it must be moved directly. As per Explanation 3,
moving the support or obstacle that keeps the property from moving is also
theft. For example, removing the pegs to which bullocks are tied, is
theft. Further, as per Explanation 4, causing an animal to move, is also
considered as moving the things that move in consequence. For example, A moves
the bullock cart carrying a box of treasure. Here, A is guilty of moving the
box of treasure.
In Bishaki's case 1917, the accused cut the string that tied the necklace in the neck of a woman, because of which the necklace fell. It was held that he caused sufficient movement of the property as needed for theft.
In Bishaki's case 1917, the accused cut the string that tied the necklace in the neck of a woman, because of which the necklace fell. It was held that he caused sufficient movement of the property as needed for theft.
No comments:
Post a Comment