Project on theft - Section 378 of IPC

INTRODUCTION

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.

For the offence of theft there is punishment of imprisonment of either description which may extend to 3 years, with fine, or both according to the Indian Penal Code. The offence of theft is even though cognizable [1] and non-bailable [2] it is compoundable[3]. So according to the criminal justice jurisprudence when the offence is compoundable then generally it cannot be term as serious category of an offence. Otherwise also the seriousness and gravity of an offence can be assessed by the fact and circumstances involve in any incidence of crime. Every citizen in a free country is having right to do fair, law based analysis of any judgment given by any courts in India without challenging the integrity of the person working as judge.

According to SECTION 378 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 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.

OBJECTIVE

Theft literally means taking away someone’s property without his or her consent. The main objective of this project is to analyse the legal approaches to criminalise theft. It analyses the existing criminal law provisions to evaluate how far these provisions are effective. Section 379 is all about punishment for theft. This study is to understand how section 379 has played a role in curtailing the offence of theft in our Country.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

Section 378 of IPC reads:

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.

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.

INGREDIENTS

The essential ingredients of the offence of theft as embodied in s 378, IPC, is well-explained by the Supreme Court in a leading decision in KN Mehra v. State of Rajasthan[4]. The alleged theft was of an aircraft, which belonged to the government (Indian Air Force Academy). Two youngsters, Mehra and Phillips, were cadets on training in the Indian Air Force at Jodhpur. Phillips was discharged from the Academy on 13 May 1952 for misconduct. On 14 May 1952, he was due to leave Jodhpur by train. His friend Mehra was due for flight in a Dakota, as part of his training along with one Om Prakash, a flying cadet. The authorised time to take off flight was between 6 am and 6.30 am on the morning of 14th May. Mehra and Phillips took off, not a Dakota but a Harvard T-22, before the prescribed time at 5 am without authorisation and without observing any of the formalities, which were pre-requisites for an aircraft flight. On the forenoon of the same day, they landed at a place in Pakistan about 100 miles away from the Indo-Pakistan border. On 16 May 1952 at 7 am, both of them met the Indian Commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi, and informed him that they had lost their way and force-landed in a field and that they had left the plane there. They requested his help to go back to Delhi. The Indian High Commissioner arranged for both of them to be sent back to Delhi in another plane. While they were on their way to Delhi, the plane stopped at Jodhpur and they were arrested and prosecuted for the offence of theft.

One of the main contentions of the accused was that if they had the inclination to take the aircraft to Pakistan, they would not have contacted the Indian High Commissioner at Karachi later. But the prosecution succeeded in proving that this apparent innocent move did not necessarily negative their intention at the time of taking off. It may be that after reaching Pakistan only, the impracticability of their scheme to get employment in Pakistan dawned upon them and they gave it up. It was enough to constitute the offence that they had the dishonest intention at the commencement of the journey. The fact that they took off Harvard T-22 plane rather than the allowed Dakota, and left India at 5 am instead of the scheduled time of 6 am, without waiting for Om Prakash, and that they also refused to respond to the wireless messages from Indian aerodrome authorities at 11 am, showed that they had the dishonest intention to take off a Harvard T-22 plane.

The court analysed the offence of theft under s 378 and hence the essential elements to constitute theft are as follows.

1. It should be a movable property;

2. In the possession of anyone;

3. A dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s possession;

4. Without his consent and

5. A moving in order to such taking.

The accused, in this case, were held guilty of the offence of theft under s 378 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the trial court for 18 months and a fine of Rs 750 with simple imprisonment, in default of payment of fine for a further term of four months. In the final appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant KN Mehra to the period already undergone.

MOVABLE PROPERTY

Movable property is defined in sec 22 as including ‘corporeal property of every description except land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth’. Any part of the earth whether it be stones, or clay or sand or any other component when severed from the earth is moveable property and is capable of being the subject of theft. A house cannot be the subject of theft, but there may be theft of its materials. Cart-loads of earth, or stones[5] carried away from the land of another are subjects of theft.

As per the Explanations 1 and 2 attached to Section 378 of IPC, things attached to the land may become movable property by severance from the earth, and that the act of severance may of itself be theft.

Human body whether living or dead (except bodies, or portions thereof, or mummies, preserved in museums and scientific institutions) is not movable property.

POSSESSION

The main right of the individual that is sought to be protected under ss 378 and 379 is undoubtedly his possession of the movables. The word ‘possession’ is not defined in the IPC, though its nature is one aspect indicated in s 27, wherein it is said that:

When property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code.

Constructive possession

In certain circumstances, a person who has no actual physical control over a thing will be deemed to have possession in the eye of law, which is called constructive possession. This is also called de jure possession or possession in law.

Joint Possession

Where there are several joint owners in joint possession and any one of them dishonestly takes exclusive possession, he will be guilty of theft[6]. A co-owner of movable property with another, whose share is defined, can be guilty of theft, if he removes the joint property without consent of the co-owner[7]. Similarly, if a coparcener dishonestly takes the separate property of another coparcener, he will be guilty of theft[8]. But the removal of even the whole of the crop by a tenant holding land from zamindar on a varam tenure without delivering it to the zamindar his share of the crop, does not constitute theft[9].

Mere custody will not amount to possession

This principle is expressly recognised in s 27, IPC. So, where a lady who wanted a railway ticket, handed the money to a stranger, who was near to the window of the ticket office, that he might procure a ticket for her, and he ran away with the money, this was held to be theft, as she never parted with the dominion over the money and merely used his hand in place of her own[10].

Temporary deprivation or Dispossession is also theft

In Pyare Lal Bhargawa v. State of Rajasthan[11], the accused was a superintendent in a government office. At the instance of somebody, he got a file from the secretariat through the clerk and took the file to his house for a day and made it available to a person to facilitate the removal of some papers and the insertion of some. Thereafter, the file was replaced. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the act amounted to theft. The Supreme Court held that to commit theft, one need not take movable property permanently out of the possession of another, with the intention not to return it to him. It would satisfy the definition if he took any movable property out of the possession of another person, though he intended to return it later. When the file was unlawfully taken away from the department, he deprived the department of the possession of the file and caused wrongful loss to the department. So, it was held that it amounted to an offence under s 378, IPC. The Supreme Court, in line with the Pyare Lal dictum, in State of Maharastra[12], held that the transfer of movable property without consent of the person in possession need not be permanent or for a considerable length of time nor is it necessary that the property should be found in possession of the accused. Even a transient transfer of possession is sufficient to meet the requisites of theft.

DISHONEST INTENTION

Intention is the gist of the offence. It is the intention of the taker at the time when he removes the article that determined whether the act is theft or not. The intention to take dishonestly exists when the taker intends to cause ‘wrongful gain’ to one person and ‘wrongful loss’ to another. Wrongful gain or wrongful loss must be involved in dishonesty[13]. Where, therefore, the accused acting bona fide in the interest of his employees, finding a party of fishermen poaching on his master’s fisheries, took charge of the nets, and retained possession of them, pending the orders of his employers, it was held that the accused was not guilty of theft[14]. When dishonest intention is totally absent, there is no theft[15]. Taking another man’s property believing, under a mistake of fact and in ignorance of law, that he has the right to take, therefore, does not amount to theft[16]. If the act done is not animo-furandi[17], it will not amount to theft.

WITHOUT CONSENT

The taking must be without the consent of the person in possession. There can be no theft where the owner actually consents to or authorises the taking. Thus, where a debtor gives up property to his creditor and subsequently discovering that the debt was time-barred, charged the latter with theft, the same was held unsustainable in Musumat Piari Oulaiy[18]a. The consent may be express or implied, may be given bt the person in possession or by any person having for that authority either express or implied.

MOVING OR TAKING

In addition to all the other ingredients, 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. The English equivalent term is asportation, which implies something more than mere moving, which alone is necessary under the IPC. For instance, where a man lifted up and set on end a package of linen, which was lying in a wagon and cut the wrapper to get at its contents, but was apprehended before he had taken anything out; and where a pick-pocket got a purse out of the owner’s pocket, but was unable to carry it away, because it was attached to his pocket by a string, the judges held that there had been no theft ‘for a carrying away, in order to constitute a felony [there] must be a removal of the goods from the place where they were; and the felon must, for the instant at least, have the entire and absolute possession of them’[19]. However in the case of a post office letter carrier, the taking out of the bag in which the letters were carried during delivery, and placing it in his own pocket was deemed sufficient, the jury having found that he put the letter in his own pocket intending to steal it[20]. So it was held in the Madras decision Venkataswami[21], where a letter-sorter instead of handing a letter out for delivery in the usual course, secreted it on his person, that he might give it to the delivery peon himself with a view to sharing the postage payable by the addressee; the high court ruled that by this act he took the letter out of the possession of the post office authorities without their consent for a fraudulent purpose and therefore committed theft.

THEFT BY OWNER OF HIS OWN PROPERTY

Paradoxical as it would seem, there is nothing in law against an owner being held guilty of theft in respect of his own goods. Theft arises when there is dishonest removal of a thing from the possession of a person who has a rightful claim to be in possession of it. Where the accused took a bundle belonging to himself, which was in the possession of a constable and for which the constable was accountable, it was held that the constable had special property in it and the accused was therefore guilty of theft. A person who removes his own cattle after attachment from the person to whom they have been entrusted without having recourse to the court under whose orders they were entrusted is guilty of theft. Similarly, a person who removes his cattle from pound without paying the legitimate fees to the pound-keeper comes becomes guilty of theft.

THEFT AS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

There is no presumption in India, that a husband and wife constitute one person and as such there can be no prosecution for theft as between them. Hence, if a wife removes her husband’s property from his house with dishonest intention, she will be guilty of theft. In this case, a Hindu wife, during her husband’s absence, removed his property from his house to that of her paramour. On the husband’s return, he charged them both with theft and they were convicted of that offence by the trial court. The conviction was upheld by the Madras High Court.

There is no presumption of law that the wife and husband constitute one person in India for the purpose of criminal law. Theft is an offence against property. And where there is no community of property, each may commit theft in regard to the property of the other. The question is one of intention. If the wife, removing the husband’s property from his house, does so with dishonest intention, she is guilty of theft.

A spouse, therefore, may be guilty of theft if he/she dishonestly removes exclusive property of the other.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND ROBBERY

S.390 of the IPC states that in all robbery cases, there is either extortion or theft. Theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to commit 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. 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.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND EXTORTION

Section 383 states: 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 deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

As To Consent:
In extortion, consent is obtained by putting the person in possession of property in fear of property in fear of injury to himself or any other person.
In theft, the offender’s intention is to take the property without the owner’s consent.
There is no element of force in theft.

Property:
In Extortion , both moveable and immoveable property may be the subject of the offence. In theft it is limited only to moveable property.

Element Of Force:
There is element of force in the offence of extortion as the property is obtained by putting a person in fear ofinjury to that person or any other.
There is no element of force in theft.

Scope:
Extortion is wider in scope as it coved any kind of property, valuable security or anything that may be converted into valuable security.
Theft covers only the cases of moveable property.

Taking Of Property:
In extortion, threat may be by one person and the property may be received by another person.
In theft, property must be move by person in order to such taking.

Effect:
In extortion, the property is delivered.
In theft, there is dishonest removal of property.

PUNISHMENT FOR THEFT

According to SECTION 379 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 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.

According to this section, any person who commits the offence of theft will be punished with an imprisonment for a term of three years or with a fine specified by the court or with both. A person can be punished under this section only if he has commits theft as per section 378.

FORMS OF THEFT

According to SECTION 380 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

For attracting s 380 it is necessary to prove that ‘theft’ was committed in a ‘building’, ‘tent’ or ‘vessel’ used as ‘human dwelling’ or for ‘custody of property’.

The expression ‘building’ conveys a structure, whether covered or uncovered, made of any material whatsoever. The term postulates some structure intended for affording some sort of protection to the persons dwelling inside it or for the property placed there for custody. Therefore a structure which does not afford such a protection, though it serves as a fencing or other means of preventing ingress or egress, cannot be a ‘building’ within the meaning of s 380.

According to SECTION 381 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

To attract this section, not only the elements should be proved but also that the accused was a clerk or servant or employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant and he has removed the movable property out of possession of his master or employer. A servant or clerk, thus, has more easy opportunity for stealing than other persons would.

A clerk of the tahsil office, who took official papers out of possession of his fellow clerk without consent of the concerned tahsildar to show them to an advocate of one of the parties to the case, was held guilty under s 381. However, despite the fact that it is considered an aggravated form of theft, the Gujarat High Court, taking into consideration the harsh circumstances under which an employee committed theft of a petty sum, took a lenient view of the matter.

According to SECTION 382 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restrain, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The aggravating fact in this section is that the accused who went to steal was also prepared to cause personal injury or intimidation of the victim, if, the situation so warranted. The preparation may be in the nature of arming himself with a stick, knife or any other weapon, that is sufficient to cause harm or injury. It is important to note that mere preparation by a thief to cause harm indicated in the section is enough to bring him under the purview of s 382. It is neither necessary nor required under the section that hurt be caused or attempted to be caused. But if he, while committing theft, causes hurt, he becomes liable for committing robbery.

Section 382 is distinguished from that of robbery. If the accused goes beyond the preparation stage and actually causes hurt, injury, then it will amount to an offence of robbery. But, if it stops with preparation and the accused does not go beyond it, even if it was because there was no necessity to cause violence then it will be covered by this section.

RELATED CASES

Ø In Mahabir Singh v Commissioner of Police[22], the Supreme Court held that seizure of vehicle due to default in the payment of instalments stipulated under the mutually agreed schedule for payment attached to the agreement cannot be construed as theft.

Ø In K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr[23], the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a view holding that in case of default to make payment of installments, Financier had a right to resume possession even if the hire purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possession, for the reason that such a condition is to be read in the agreement. In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the Financer had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertions of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that Financer had resumed the possession of the vehicle with a guilty intention.

Ø In the case of Biswanath Patra vs Divisional Engineer[24], it was held that the theft of electricity would not be charged under section 379 of Indian Penal Code because When there is a specific/special law covering the question of theft of electricity i.e. Section 135 of the Act, the general law contained in Section 379, IPC will not be applicable. Special law will always prevail over the general law.

Ø In the case of Kesavan Nair vs State Of Kerala[25], it was held that an intention of the accused to 'take' any movable property out of possession of another person without the consent of the other person and also an intention to cause wrongful gain by unlawful means was necessary to be charged under Section 378 IPC. A mere removal of a movable property by a person from possession of another without the consent of the latter with the sole intention to evict him from a building will not be sufficient to make out an offence under Section 380 of IPC. Therefore the Charge against the accused in this case is quashed.

Ø In the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha And Ors. vs Sudhir Mehra[26], it was held that the owner re-possessing the vehicle delivered to the hirer under the hire purchase agreement will not amount to theft as the vital element of 'dishonest intention' is lacking. The element of 'dishonest intention' which is an essential element to constitute the offence of theft cannot be attributed to a person exercising his right under an agreement entered into between the parties as he may not have an intention of causing wrongful gain or to cause wrongful loss to the hirer. The re-possession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement which they had entered into specifically gave authority to the appellants to re-possess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept. Under the hire purchase agreement, the appellants have continued to be the owner of the vehicle and even if the entire allegations against them are taken as true, no offence was made out against them.

Ø In the case of Bandrappa vs State By Gadigenur Police on 21 March ILR[27], it was held that if a person dishonestly removes any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, the said person would commit theft. The Explanation 1 to the said section says “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”. This explanation makes it further clear that, if the ore is removed from the earth, then it would be a subject-matter of theft. Illustration (a) to Section 378 of IPC makes it very clear that as soon as petitioner has severed the iron ore from the land in order to transport the same, it is to be said that he has committed a theft. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the crime does not fall within the definition of 'theft' is liable to be rejected and therefore the accused is liable to be punished under section 379 of IPC.

Ø In the case of M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs Mohd. Abdul Wakeel And Another[28], it was held that if the applicant took possession of the vehicle under hire-purchase agreement, it cannot be said that he was guilty of theft because there was no intention to take the vehicle dishonestly. Thus, the essential ingredient of the offence of theft as per Section 378 of IPC was not there. Moreover the signing of agreement implied consent to the right of taking the possession of vehicle on failure of payment of money. Therefore this is not an offence under section 379 of IPC since the essential ingredient of the section is missing.

CONCLUSION

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use. These ingredients are necessary to commit the offence of theft under section 378 of IPC. If any of these ingredients is not found, then it would not come under the purview of sec 378 of IPC and the accused cannot be punished under sec 379 of IPC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Net sources

• www.indiankanoon.org

• www.wikipedia.org

• www.vakilno1.com

• bombayhighcourt.nic.in

Books referred

• Criminal Law by PSA Pillai, 10th edition

Statutes referred

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860

[1] cognizable offence is a criminal offence in which the police is empowered to register an FIR, investigate, and arrest an accused without a court issued warrant.

[2] non-bailable means shall not be automatically entitled to be released on bail [but does not mean that the court may not order him to be released on a suitable bail - with or without any conditions]

[3] Some offences largely affect only the victim and no considerable harm is considered to be done to the society. In such offences, if the offender and victim compromise, there is no need to waste court's time in conducting a trial. The process of reaching a compromise is called Compounding

[4] AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552 (SC)

[5] Suri Venkatappayya Sastri v Madula Venkunna (1904) ILR 27 Mad 531 (FB)

[6] Virankutty v Chiyamu (1884) ILR 7 Mad 55

[7] Ramsharangat Singh (1966) Cr LJ 856

[8] Sita Ram Rai (1880) ILR All 181

[9] Subudhi Rantho v Balarama Pudi(1902) ILR 26 Mad 481

[10] R v Thompson 32 LJ (MC) 50

[11] AIR 1963 SC 1094

[12] (1979) Cr LJ 1193 (SC)

[13] KN Mehra v State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552 (SC)

[14] Nobin Chandar Hoidar (1866) W R (Cri) 79

[15] Venkatanarayana v State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) Cr LJ (NOC) 179 (AP)

[16] Queen-Empress v Nagappa (1890) ILR 15 Bom 344

[17] Intention to steal

[18] (1904) 1 ALJ 508

[19] Charry’s case East PC 556

[20] R v Poynton L and C 247

[21] (1890) ILR 14 Mad 229

[22] 129 (2006) DLT 542

[23] 1996 (7) SCC 212

[24] Air 2007 Cal 189, 2008 (2) Chn 657

[25] 2005 (3) KLT 391

[26] 2001 VIIAD SC 75, AIR 2001 SC 3721

[27] 2007 KAR 3190

[28] 2001 Cri LJ 2441, 2001 (3) MPHT 12