Whether theft can be committed in respect of information contained in document?

By the order of the Magistrate dated 08.10.2010, cognizance
was taken against respondents No.1 to 16 for commission of
the offences under Sections 380, 411 and 120B IPC. There
are no averments in the complaint nor are there allegations
in the statement of the complainant or the witness P.B.
Dinesh as to when and how the theft was committed and the
order of the Magistrate dated 08.10.2010 taking cognizance
of the criminal case against respondents No.1 to 16 qua
documents No.1 to 54 is liable to be set aside.
 It is held that the “document” as defined in Section 29 IPC is
a “moveable property” within the meaning of Section 22 IPC
which can be the subject matter of theft. The information
contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the
purview of the “corporeal property” and can be the subject
matter of the theft. The findings of the High Court is
modified to that extent.
 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, use of
documents No.1 to 28 and documents No.29 to 54 by the
respondents in judicial proceedings is to substantiate their
case namely, “oppression and mismanagement” of the
administration of appellant-Company and their plea in other
pending proceedings and such use of the documents in the
litigations pending between the parties would not amount to
theft. No “dishonest intention” or “wrongful gain” could be
attributed to the respondents and there is no “wrongful loss”
to the appellant so as to attract the ingredients of Sections
378 and 380 IPC.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 875 OF 2019

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED  Vs  ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS  LIMITED

Dated:May 09, 2019.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

Whether bonds are movable property?

We are unable to agree with the contention of Mr.
Rohit Kapadia and Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The suit bonds in the instant case are movable properties
which are capable of being possessed. The definition of
the term movable property can be found in Section 3(36)
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads thus-
“movable property, shall mean property of every
description, except immovable property.”
A reading of the sub-Section of the above provision makes
it clear that everything that is not immovable is
5 (2006) 6 SCC 94, para 84
movable, and thus the suit bonds in the instant case are
specific moveable property to which Article 91(a) of the
Limitation Act applies.
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9540-9541 OF 2010
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK …………APPELLANT
Vs.
ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS

Citation;AIR 2015 SC3530

Print Page

On dissolution, all assets of partnership firm are converted into money I.e. movable property.

As observed in the aforesaid, the value of the property is to be
assessed and the partners are entitled to get the adjustment of their
shares from the amount according to the share held in the
partnership firm. Consequently, the question of law is answered that
on dissolution, the immovable property of a partnership firm
converted into money, therefore, looses the character of immovable
property in the hands of the partner and the partners are entitled to
receive their proportionate share in residue of the property being
money represent the value of the property.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 865 / 1998

Smt. Shanti Bai Agrawal & Others
VERSUS

Smt. Uma Bai Agarwal 

Print Page