Skip to main content

THEFT (Section 378)

 THEFT (Section 378)


Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft.

A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property.

  1. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen.

  2. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft.

Eg:
1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the

2)

tree. He has committed theft.
A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a

different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials:

1. Dishonest taking.
2. Moveable property
3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent
5. Moving with the property

1. Dishonest Taking:


The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must be dishonest.

E.g.
Taking a cow by force, in satisfaction of a debt, is a wrongful gain and therefore theft. Animo Furtandi (Intention) is essential.

In Pyarelal Bhargava V

State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court has held that removing an office file for the purpose of

removing some documents and replacing with others, is theft under this section.

ii) Moveable property:

The property for theft must be moveable only.
Human body is not moveable property and therefore cannot be stolen. Once the property is severed from the earth it becomes moveable.

iii) Out of the possession of the person: Taking a thing out of the possession of the person is essential.

Hence the offender, must take the property otherwise there is no offense.

iv) Without consent:
If there is consent of the owner, there is no offense of theft at all.

Consent may be expressed or implied.

v) Moving with the property:

Theft is completed when there is dishonest moving with the property.
A guest who takes away dishonestly the bed sheets while going was held guilty of

theft when he moved out of the house.


In Mehra V

State of Rajasthan,
Moving out with dishonest intention was essential for theft the Supreme Court said

A person may commit a theft of his own property.

‘A’ pledges his goods with ‘P’. Subsequently he takes them without the consent of P. dishonestly. A is guilty of theft of his own property.


Theft in dwelling house is punishable under Sec- 380

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

Winding Up Companies rules Section 272

Winding Up: 1) Winding up of a company is a process through which the life of the company comes into an end. 2) In this process the management of the company is taken away from the hands of the Directors of the company. 3) An administrator called a liquidator is appointed and he takes the control of the company, collects the assets, liabilities are discharged (i.e. all the creditors) and finally distributes if any surplus among the members. 4) At the end of the winding up, the company is left with no assets and liabilities and thus gets formally dissolved. Compulsory Winding up: 1) The winding up process done by the tribunal is known a compulsory winding up of a company. 2) It is also known as Tribunal Winding up. 3) Chapter XX, Part – 1of the CA 2013 deals with the compulsory winding up. Grounds for winding up by Tribunal: 1) Special Resolution 2) Acts against sovereignty 3) Default in filing the statements 4) Fraudulent Conduct 5) Just and Equitable. Person who can file a Petition to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more