What is theft, Extortion, Dacoity, Robbery, Kidnapping and Abduction, as per provisions of IPC?

 Under the IPC, these offences are easiest to remember if you link each one to its core act: theft = taking, extortion = obtaining by fear, robbery = theft/extortion plus instant violence, dacoity = robbery by 5 or more persons, kidnapping = taking away a person unlawfully, and abduction = compelling or inducing a person to go from a place by force or deceit.

Theft

Theft is defined in Section 378 IPC. It means that a person, with dishonest intention, takes movable property out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent, and moves that property in order to take it.

So, in simple words: theft means dishonestly taking someone’s movable property without consent.

Print Page

What is the difference between theft and extortion?

 The key differences between theft and extortion lie in their methods, consent mechanisms, and the nature of property involved. Here's a comprehensive comparison based on the provisions of both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):

Definitions

Print Page

Important features of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

 1. The new Act is called as “Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023” and has replaced the Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Chapters and offences against women and children, murder have been given precedence. Further, the offences against women and children which were scattered throughout in the erstwhile Penal Code, 1860 have been brought together and have been consolidated under Chapter-V. In the same manner, the offences affecting the human body are also brought up in the order and placed after the Chapter on offences against women and children.

3. BNS has been streamlined and it will now consist of only 358 Sections as opposed to 511 Sections in IPC, 1860.

4. All three incomplete category offences i.e. Attempt, Abetment and Conspiracy are brought together under one Chapter- IV of the BNS, 2023. Earlier these offences were part of different Chapters.

Print Page

How to ascertain that a person was dealing with stolen property?

 To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the Accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable.

{Para 15}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2022 

Shiv Kumar   Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Decided On: 07.09.2022

Citation: MANU/SC/1114/2022

Print Page

Whether person committing theft of electricity can be prosecuted under provisions of IPC?

 Sections 378 and 379 IPC deal with the theft of movable property. Electricity is energy and not property. There is no provision in the IPC to prosecute any person for committing theft of electricity. Therefore the provisions of Electricity Act are enacted to take various offences relating to electricity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 4415 of 2017

Decided On: 09.02.2018

 Syed Yaqoob Syed Masood Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Shinde and A.M. Dhavale, JJ.

Print Page

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

Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

Receiving stolen property (S 410- 414)

Ordinarily a culprit who obtains property by theft of other criminal means would be anxious to dispose it of,mainly with a view to destroy evidence,and also to convert it into money.If the receiver were to go unpunished,robbers and thieves would prosper.S 411 to 414 are enacted to punish receivers of stolen property.Thus receiving or obtaining stolen property,knowing it to be such,is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.(S 411 of IPC)

Print Page

Notes on offence of theft,extortion,robbery,and dacoity

Theft (S.378 of IPC)
Five ingredients of offence of theft are as under:
1) Dishonest intention to take property,
2) Property must be movable,
3) It should be taken out of possession of another person,
4) Property should be taken without consent of owner,
5)There should be some removal of property in order to accomplish the taking of it.

Print Page

Whether transferee of vehicle is entitled to get benefit of insurance policy if there is theft of vehicle?

The relevant observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of its judgment in Mallamma's case
(supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
“Before us, learned counsel for the appellants
relying upon Section 157 of the M.V. Act, contended that
there is an admitted transfer of ownership of the vehicle as
proved before the Commissioner. Once the ownership of
the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred to
Jeeva Rathna Setty, the existing insurance policy in respect
of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been
transferred to the new owner and the policy will not lapse
even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the
M.V. Act is not given to the insurer, hence the impugned
order passed by the High Court is contrary to law. In
support of this contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in G.
Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd . (1999) 3
SCC 754.”
When the abovesaid ratio of the law laid down in Mallamma's
case (supra), is considered in the factual context of the present case, same
squarely applies in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner-

Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded
that learned Permanent Lok Adalat was well justified, while placing reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallamma's case (supra)
and the impugned order deserves to the upheld for this reason also.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
 AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 14086 of 2016
Date of Decision: 11.8.2016
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others

Vs.
Abhishek Kumar and another

CORAM :  MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Citation: 2017(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)23

Print Page

Whether insurance company can repudiate insurance claim for theft of vehicle if theft is not promptly intimated?

 We have considered the rival contention and perused the record. On perusal of complaint we find that it is the case of the complainant that he reported the theft of subject vehicle to the concerned Police Station on the same day and gave oral information of theft to the petitioner insurance company. It is not the case of the complainant that he gave immediate intimation of theft of vehicle in writing to the insurance company. Thus, the question is whether the Fora below were justified in allowing in the consumer complaint ignoring condition no. 1 of the insurance contract, which reads as under:

“1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

 8. Similar issue came up before the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the mater of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Prakash, Revision Petition No. 2479 of 2015 decided on 11.01.2016. In the said matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Commission took the view that on account of failure of the complainant to perform his contractual obligation to intimate the theft of vehicle to the insurer, repudiation of contract was justified. Similar view was taken by Bench No. 4 of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 2391 of 2015 titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Harbhajan Khaira.

 9. We do not find any reason to differ with the aforesaid view taken by Coordinate Benches. Accordingly, we hold that Fora below have committed a grave irregularity by passing the impugned order in utter disregard of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra). Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that as the insured has failed to fulfil his obligation to intimate the theft of vehicle to the insurer in writing immediately after the theft, insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(Before Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and S.M. Kantikar, Member)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

V

Arun Kumar Singh & anr.

Revision Petition No. 1054 of 2016

Decided on January 3, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of offence U/S 498A of IPC?

 If we peruse the records of the Court below, more
particularly the appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant, PW-1 as well
as Aatmaram, PW-2 and Siya Bai, PW-3 i.e. the father and mother of the
Complainant, PW-1, it is evidently clear that there was no allegation of any
demand of dowry against the Non-Applicants by the Complainant all along till
the written complaint for the first time was written by the Complainant on
7.8.2013 based upon which, the First Information Report was subsequently
registered on 7.9.2013. The Court below has in detail, considered the
evidence of the Complainant and the evidence of the prosecution and in the
course of the evidence, it was found that the relationship between the
Complainant and Non-Applicant No.1- her husband was in fact cordial which is
established from the fact that after she had conceived of her 1st child, it was
Non-Applicant No.1 who went and dropped the Complainant at her home
when she was at the advanced stage of 8 months pregnancy. Even at that
point of time, there was no allegation of any cruelty met upon the Complainant
by the Non-Applicant No.1. From the evidence, it is also clear that the entire3
dispute arose because of a report of theft lodged by Non-Applicant No.1
against the Complainant and her family members on 6.1.2012 wherein in a
complaint made to the SDM, it was alleged that the Complainant in the present
case and her parents had committed theft of certain gold and silver articles
and also certain clothes from the house of Non-Applicant No.1 and the said
complaint was registered with the SDM who in turn, had called upon the
Complainant and her parents and it was only subsequently for the first time
that the Complainant had lodged a complaint against her in-laws levelling
allegations of cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2016

Chaya Sahu Vs  Amit Sahu 

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J
Dated:13.6.2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)269 Chh

Print Page

Theft of jack tree wood by MD of corporation-Whether offence U/S409 of IPC is made out?

 Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC were not attracted in the present case. It was further submitted that the timber was simply lying in the house of the appellant and that the property was not converted to his use. Mr. V. Shyamohan, learned Additional Standing counsel appearing for the State of Kerala –respondent, emphasized that the timber was found at a distance of 140 Kms. and such timber was never accounted for in the accounts of the Corporation.

 Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and gone through the record, we are of the view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC are clearly attracted in the present case. As Managing Director of the Corporation, the appellant was having dominion over the property in question in his capacity of public servant. The removal of timber from the plot in question to the house of the appellant at a considerable distance and non-accounting thereof in the books of the Corporation are very clinching and relevant circumstances. We therefore uphold the order of conviction as recorded by the Courts below.

Supreme Court of India

Antony Cardoza vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2014

Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit

                                                              

Citation;2015 ALLSCR568

Print Page

Bombay High Court relief for man whose gold chain went missing from police station

A man whose gold chain went missing from the custody of Buldhana police station ten years ago finally got relief after the Bombay high court (HC) directed the police superintendent and district collector of the area to compensate him as per market value.

A division bench of Justices AB Chaudhari and PN Deshmukh of the HC's Nagpur bench has directed them to first compensate Vijay Pandagale, and then recover the amount from the constables from whose custody the chain went missing.

In 2005, there was a theft at Pandagale's home wherein the gold chain weighing 17.95 gm went missing. The chain was seized from the accused, and kept as muddemal property(kept in police custody till the completion of a trial) at the police station, from where it disappeared.

Print Page