(..19..)

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Table of Contents

QUESTION BANK

1 Explain the ingredient of offence of cheating
2 In all Robbery, there is either theft or exotic elucidates. Distinguish between

Robbery and Dacoity

Q.3 Define & explain ‘Robbery’ and distinguish it from ‘Dacoity’

Q.4 Define and explain ‘cheating’

Q.5 Define and explain ‘Theft’

Q.6 What is extortion? Distinguish it from robbery.

SHORT NOTES

Cheating by personation.
Robbery & Dacoity
Theft and extortion
Criminal misappropriation and criminal branch of trust.
Mischief
Criminal breach of Trust.

INTRODUCTION:-

Chapter XVII of the Code is the second longest chapter in the Code. It consists of sections 378 to 462.

Offences against property can be divided into three groups, viz. –

A) Offences dealing with deprivation of property (Ss.378 to 424)
B) Offences dealing with damage to property (Ss.425 to 440)
C) Offences in relation to violation of rights to property in order

to commit some other offences (Ss.441 to 462)

A) Offences Dealing with Deprivation of Property (Ss.378 to 424):-

1) Theft

2) Extortion

3) Robbery

4) Dacoity

5) Criminal misappropriation of property

6) Criminal breach of trust

7) Receiving stolen property

8) Cheating

9) Fraudulent deeds and disposition of property

B) Offences Dealing with Damage to Property (Ss.425 to 440)

1) Mischief.

C) Offences in Relation to Violation of Rights to Property in order to Commit

some other Offences (Ss.441 to 462)

1) Criminal Trespass.

2) House Trespass.

3) Lurking House Trespass.

4) Housebreaking.

1) THEFT[1] (Ss.378 to 389):-

I] Definition:-

Whoever-

i) Intending to take dishonestly,
ii) Any movable property,

iii) Out of the possession of any person

iv) Without the consent of that person
v) Moves that property in order of such taking

– is said to commit theft (S.378)

II] Explanations:-

Five explanations are provided for the definition of theft.

Explanation 1: – A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being

moveable 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 move effected by the same act that affects the severance may be theft.

Explanation 3: – A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle that 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 expressed 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.

Illustrations

a) A cut down a tree on Z’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to do such taking, he has committed theft.
b) A puts bait for dogs in his pocket and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention is dishonest to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.
c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a

certain direction in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.

d) A, being Z’s servant and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate without Z’s consent. A has committed theft[2].

Punishment: – For theft, the punishment is up to 3 years or a fine or both.

III] Ingredients:-

1) Dishonest Intention[3]:-

The intention is the gist of the offence. Merely taking will not amount to the offence of theft unless the intention with which it is taken is ‘dishonest’. S.24 of the Code defines ‘dishonesty’ as doing anything with the intention of causing Wrongful Gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. S. 23 of the Code defines ‘Wrongful Gain’ is the gain by unlawful means of the property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. ‘Wrongful Loss’ is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Both ‘Wrongful Gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’ need not be caused at a time; either of these two is sufficient to constitute an offence of theft. If there is no intention of taking ‘dishonesty’, there is no theft. A bonafide act does not amount to theft. (See Illustration P)

Even one can steal his own property if he takes it dishonestly from another (See Illustration (j). A person will also act dishonestly even though he temporarily dispossesses another of his property, intending to return it later. (See Illustrations (a) and (l)).

2) Movable Property:-

The subject of the theft is movable property, i.e., corporeal property of every description except the land and things attached to the earth or permanently fixed to anything which is attached to the earth or permanently fixed to anything which is attached to the earth (Explanation I).

Things attached to the earth may become movable property as soon as they are severed from the earth, and this act of severance itself constitutes theft (Illustration (a))

‘Electricity’ is not ‘movable property’. However, by legal fiction under S.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it is treated as the subject matter of theft.

3) Out of the Possession of any Person:-

Theft is an offence against ‘possession’ and not against ‘title’. Therefore, to constitute an offence of theft, removing the property out of the possession of somebody without his consent is necessary (Illustration (f))

Thus, there can be no theft of property that belongs to anyone.

Even though the person from whose possession the property is taken may or may not be its owner, he may be in possession of it, and he may not be its owner; it does not matter whether his possession is rightful or wrongful [See Illustration (j) and (k)]

4) Without the Consent of that Person:-

The stolen property must be removed without the express or implied consent of the person in possession. It is not necessary that the person giving consent must be the owner; he may have physical control over it under an express or implied authority of the owner [See Illustration (m) and (n)]

5) Moves that Property[4]:-

Dishonestly moving the property out of the person’s possession without that person’s consent constitutes theft. ‘Dishonest Moving’ is sufficient to constitute theft. It is not necessary that the thing moved should be carried away or carried off [See Explanations 3 and 4 and Illustrations (b) and (c)]

Moreover, taking may not be of a permanent nature; in other words, temporarily dispossessing another from property constitutes the offence of theft.

IV] Aggravated forms of theft (Ss.380 to 382):-

Following are the aggravated forms of theft

(i.e., to which higher punishment is provided)

1) Theft in dwelling house etc. Punishment- Imprisonment of up to 7 years and a fine (S.380).

2) Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. Punishment-Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine (S.381).

3) Theft after preparation is made for causing death, hurt, or restraint in order to commit the theft (S.382).

2) EXTORTION[5] (S.383 to 389):-

SYNOPSIS

I] Definition (S.383)

II] Ingredients of Extortion

1) Initially putting a person in fear of injury

2) Dishonest inducement to deliver property etc.

III] Aggravated forms of extortion (Ss.386 to 389)

IV] Difference between ‘theft’ and ‘extortion’

1) As to property

2) As to consent

3) As to inducement / delivery of property

4) As to force

I. Definition (S.383):-

i) Whoever,
ii) Intentionally,

iii) Puts any person in fear of any injury to the person, or to

(the person of) any other, and

iv) Thereby, dishonestly induces the person so put in fear.
v) To deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything

signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.

-Commits Extortion.

ILLUSTRATIONS

A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z, unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain moneys to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.[6]

Punishment: – Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both (S.384).

Even putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion is also punishable by imprisonment up to two years or a fine or both (S.385).

II] Ingredients of Extortion:-

1) Intentionally Putting a Person in Fear of Injury: –

Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another is the first requirement of the offence of extortion. S.44 of the Code defines ‘injury’ as “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, reputation, or property.”

Thus, the injury that the person may be put in fear of is not necessarily a physical injury, but injury to the character may also be an injury.

2) Dishonest Inducement to Deliver Property etc.: –

The second requirement of the offence of extortion is that the offence should have been committed with dishonest intention. Thus, the offender must dishonestly induce the person put in fear to deliver –

i) Any property
ii) Valuable security, or

iii) Anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security

III] Aggravated Forms of Extortion (Ss.386 to 389):-

1) Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt (S.386). Punishment- Imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine.

2) Putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to attempt to commit extortion (S.387). Punishment- Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

3) Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life (S.388)

4) Putting a person in fear of accusation of offence in order to attempt to commit extortion (S.389).

IV] Difference between ‘Theft’ and ‘Extortion’:-

The offences of ‘theft’ and ‘extortion’ have many common features. Both are offences against property. Both require ‘dishonest intention’ to constitute an offence. However, there are the following differences, viz-

1) As to Property:-

Extortion can be committed with reference to any kind of property, movable or immovable, whereas theft can be committed in respect of movable property only.

2) As to Consent:-

In extortion, the victim’s consent is obtained wrongfully, whereas in theft, the property is moved or taken without the owner’s consent.

3) As to Inducement / Delivery of Property:-

In theft, the property is taken without the owner’s consent, whereas, in extortion, the person intimidated is induced to deliver the property.

4) As to Force:-

In theft, there exists no element of force, whereas in extortion, there always exists an element of force.

3) ROBBERY[7] (Ss.390 to 394 and 401):-

I] Definition

Theft is Robbery
Extortion is Robbery

II] Aggravated forms of Robbery

I] Definition:-

S.390 defines ‘Robbery’ as-

-In all ‘robbery’, there is either theft or extortion.

1) Theft is Robbery[8]:-

i) In order to the committing of the theft, or
ii) In committing the theft, or

iii) In carrying away, or

iv) In attempting to carry away property obtained by theft

-the offender for that end voluntarily causes (or attempts to cause) to any person

i) Death, or
ii) Hurt, or

iii) Wrongful restraint, or

iv) Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint

2) Extortion is Robbery[9]:-

If the offender, at the time of committing extortion-

i) Is in the presence of the person put in fear and
ii) Commits the extortion by putting that person in fear

of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful

restraint to that person or to some other person, and

iii) By so putting in fear induces the person to put in

fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation: –

The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.

ILLUSTRATION

a) A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes without Z’s consent. Here, A has committed theft and, in order to commit that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here, A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has, therefore, committed robbery.[10]

Robbery is an Aggravated form of Theft or of Extortion:-

Thus, we may put the definition of robbery in equation form as

ROBBERY =	Theft, violence (or fear of instant violence), or
	Extortion + Offender Present + Fear of instant violence + immediate delivery.

Punishment: – Imprisonment of up to 10 years and fine (S. 392)

II] Aggravated forms of Robbery: –

1) If robbery is committed on highways between sunset and sunrise (S.392).

2) If the hurt is caused voluntarily in committing robbery (S.394).

3) Belonging to the gang of persons associated with the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery (S.401).

4) DACOITY[11]:-

SYNOPSIS

I] Definition (S.391)

II] Dacoity with Murder (S.396)

III] Aggravated forms of ‘Dacoity’

IV] Allied Offences

V] Distinction between ‘Robbery’ and ‘Dacoity’

Dacoity is an aggravated form of robbery, whereas; robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion.

I] Definition (S.391):-

When five or more persons conjointly –

a) Commit or attempt to commit robbery, or
b) Are present and aid such commission or attempt.

-every one of them is said to commit ‘Dacoity.’

Punishment: – For Dacoity, the punishment is imprisonment for life or

imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine (S.395).

Attempting to commit ‘Dacoity’ is as much punishable as committing Dacoity itself.

II] Dacoity with Murder (S.396):-

If any one of the dacoits commits murder while committing dacoity, every one of them is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

This section incorporates the principle of ‘constructive criminality.’

III] Aggravated forms of ‘Dacoity’:-

Following are the aggravated forms of dacoity viz-.

1) Robbery or Dacoity, with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt (S.397).

2) Attempt to commit robbery or Dacoity armed with deadly weapons (S.398)

IV] Allied Offences:-

1) Making preparation to commit Dacoity (S. 399):-

The general rule is that the preparation to do an offence is not punishable except in cases of-

i) Preparation to wage war against the State (S.122), preparation to commit depredation on territories of power at peace with the Gvt. Of India (S.126); and
ii) Preparation to commit Dacoity (S.399)

Thus, preparation to commit Dacoity is punishable by rigorous imprisonment

up to ten years and fine.

2) Belonging to a Gang of Dacoits (S.400):-

Belonging to a gang of dacoits is punishable with life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine.

3) Assembling for the Purpose of Committing Dacoity (S.402):-

Assembling for the purpose of committing Dacoity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine.

V] Distinction between ‘Robbery’ and ‘Dacoity’:-

The distinction between ‘Robbery’ and ‘Dacoity’ lies in the number of persons involved in the offence. Robbery is Dacoity if committed by five or more persons.

5) CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY[12] (S.403 and 404):-

SYNOPSIS

I] Dishonest misrepresentation of property (S.403)

II] Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time

of his death (S.404): –

III] Difference between theft and criminal misappropriate

1) In theft, the object of the offender is to

take property from other’s possession.

2) Moving

3) Consent

4) Previous/subsequent ‘dishonest intention’

The offence of ‘criminal misappropriation’ of the property consists of dishonest appropriation, or conversion, of another’s property to capitalise it for one’s own use. It may be that the possession of property might have been obtained or come innocently. However, a subsequent change of intention (dishonest) of possession makes the possession wrongful or fraudulent. In other words, initial possession may be valid, but due to a change in intention, it becomes invalid, i.e., ‘criminal misappropriation’.

I] Dishonest Misappropriation of Property (S.403):-

Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property shall be imprisoned for up to two years, with a fine, or both.

Illustrations

A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing, at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft, but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.[13]

Explanation 1- A ‘dishonest misappropriation’ for a (short) term only is a

misappropriation within the meaning of this section.

Illustration

A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z, bearing a blank endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it to a banker as security for the loan, intending to restore it to Z at a future time. A has committed an offence under this section.

Explanation 2 – A person who finds a property not in possession of any other person and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it or of restoring it to the owner does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly and is not guilty of an offence but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property for a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.

What are reasonable means? or what is a reasonable time in such a case? It is a question of fact.

It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believes that real owner cannot be found.

Illustration

A finds a rupee on the high road; not knowing to whom the rupee belongs, A picks up the rupee. Here, A has not committed the offence defined in this section.
A finds a letter on the road containing a bank note. From the direction and contents of the letter, he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence under this section.[14]

It appears from the above definition and illustrations that there are the following two ingredients of the offence: –

1) Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property for a person’s own use

2) Property must be movable.

II] Dishonest Misappropriation of Property Possessed by Deceased Person at the

Time of his Death (S.404): –

Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease and has not since been in possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and shall also be liable to fine. If he employed the offender at the time of such person’s decease as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years.

Illustration

Z dies in possession of furniture and money. Before the money comes into the possession of any person entitled to such possession, his servant A dishonestly misappropriates it. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

III] Difference between ‘Theft’ and ‘Criminal Misappropriation’:-

Following are the points of distinction between ‘theft’ and ‘criminal misappropriation’.

In theft, the object of the offender is to take property from another’s possession, whereas, in ‘criminal misappropriation’, the offender already possesses the property.
Moving: –

Moving the property is an important ingredient of theft. The initial moving of property may be lawful, but the subsequent ‘dishonest’ intention to misappropriate or convert the property to his own use is the offence.

Consent: –

In theft, the moving of property takes place without the consent of the owner.

However, in ‘criminal misappropriation’, the possession of the property may be with the express or implied consent of the owner.

Previous/subsequent ‘dishonest intention’:-

In theft, the dishonest intention precedes the act of taking.

Whereas, in ‘criminal misappropriation of property,’ it is the subsequent change in intention to misappropriate or convert the property for one’s own use that constitutes the offence.

*****

6) CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST[15] (Ss.405 to 409):-

SYNOPSIS

I] Definition: –

Entrustment of property: –

II] Aggravated forms of the offence: –

III] Difference between “Criminal Misappropriation of Property” and “Criminal Breach of trust”: –

1) Receiving Property

2) Contractual relationship

3) Conversion

I] Definition: –

Generally, any deliberate or negligent failure to implement the duties incumbent by law on a trustee or a person in the fiduciary position is a breach of trust’.

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or dominance over property,

a) Dishonestly / misappropriates, or
b) Converts to his own use, or
c) Uses or disposes of that property.

In violation of-

a) any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or
b) legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or

Willfully, suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘Criminal Breach of Trust.’

Punishment is imprisonment for three years, or with a fine or both (S.406)

Explanations 1 and 2: –

Explanations one and two to this section provide that an employer deducting an employee’s contribution from his wages for credit to a Provident Fund or to a Family Pension Fund established by law[16] or to the Employees State Insurance Fund Established under law[17] shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount. If he makes any default in payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of law, he shall be deemed to have dishonestly used that amount in violation of a direction of law.

Illustration

A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law, which directs him to divide the effects (proceeds) according to the will and appropriates them for his own use. A has committed a criminal breach of trust.
A is a warehouse keeper. Z, going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A under a contract that it shall be returned upon payment of a stipulated sum for the warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed a criminal breach of trust[18]

Entrustment of Property:-

To constitute a criminal breach of trust, there must be an entrustment of property or any dominion over it. Secondly, it has to be established that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract by the accused himself or by somebody else, which he willingly suffered to do. The term ‘entrustment’ implies the handing over of the possession of a thing for some purpose, which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right. Entrustment may be in any manner. Thus, property was entrusted to the director of the company, collection of land revenue by a Tahsildar handing over partnership property to a partner, currency notes were taken by police while doing the search, and a woman’s property (Strtridhan) was in the hands of in-law’s family are all instances of ‘entrustment’.

II] Aggravated Forms of the Offence: –

Following are the aggravated (i.e., punishable severely) forms of offences of ‘criminal breach of trust.”

Criminal Breach of trust by carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse keeper (S.407)
Criminal Breach of trust by clerk or servant (S.408).
Criminal Breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent (S.409).

III] Difference between “Criminal Misappropriation of Property” and “Criminal Breach of Trust”: –

1) Receiving Property: –

In ‘misappropriation,’ property comes into the possession of the accused legally or otherwise, and he afterwards misappropriates it.

Meanwhile, in a ‘criminal breach of trust,’ the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates it subsequently.

2) Contractual Relationship: –

In ‘criminal breach’ of trust, a contractual relationship exists between the parties, whereas, in ‘misappropriation’, a contractual relationship does not exist.

3) Conversion[19]: –

In ‘criminal breach of trust’, there is the conversion of property held in a fiduciary character, whereas, in ‘misappropriation’, there is the conversion of property coming into possession of the offender anyhow.

7) CHEATING[20] (S.415 to 420)

SYNOPSIS

I] Definition

II] Aggravated forms of cheating (Ss.416 to 420)

III] Difference between ‘criminal misperception’, ‘criminal breach of trust’ and

‘cheating’

1) As to Nature

2) As to property

3) As to possession

I] Definition:-

415 defines cheating as –

Whoever, by deceiving any person-

Fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived-

i) To deliver any property to any person or
ii) To consent that any person shall retain any property or

Intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and
Which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property – is said to ‘cheat’.

Explanation: –

A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Punishment: –

Punishment for cheating is imprisonment for up to 1 year, or fine, or both[21].

Illustration

A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that a certain celebrated manufacture made this article, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.[22]

II] Aggravated Forms of Cheating (Ss.416 to 420)

1) Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss thereby be caused to a person

whose interest the offender is bound to protect (S.418).

2) Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (S.420).

3) Cheating by personation (S.416)

416 defines cheating by personation as ‘one cheats by –
i) Pretending to be some other person or by
ii) Knowingly substituting one person for another, or

iii) Representing that he or any other person is a person

other than he or such other person really is –

– cheats by personation’.

Punishment: – For ‘cheating by personation’, the punishment is imprisonment of up to 3 years, a fine, or both. (S.419).

Other sections in the Code regarding the personation of–

1) A soldier (S.140)

2) A public servant (S.170)

3) Wearing garb or carrying the token used

by a public servant (S.171)

4) Personating at an election (S.171 D).

5) Personation for the purposes of an act of

proceeding in a suit or prosecution (S.205)

6) A juror or assessor (S.229).

III] Difference between ‘Theft’ ‘Criminal Misappropriation’, and ‘Cheating’:-

There are the following differences between these three:

1. As to Nature:-

In theft, the intention is to take a movable property dishonestly out of the

possession of another person.

In ‘misappropriation’ the intention is to dishonestly misappropriate or convert to

his own use of any movable property.

In the case of ‘cheating’, the intention is to fraudulently or dishonestly induce the

deceived person to deliver any property.

2. As to Property

In ‘theft’ and ‘criminal misrepresentation,’ the property involved is movable,

whereas ‘cheating’ may take place in respect of movable as well as immovable

property.

3. As to Possession

In theft, the property is taken out of the possession of another.

In ‘misappropriation’, the offender already possesses the property.

In ‘cheating’, the victim is induced to deliver the property to the offender.

8) MISCHIEF[23] (S.425 to 440):-

SYNOPSIS

I] Definition

II] Aggravated forms of mischief Aggravated forms (Ss.427-440)

I] Definition: –

A person commits mischief if he –

i) with the intention to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to-
a) the public, or
b) any person
ii) Causes: –
a) the destruction of any property, or
b) any such change in any property or the situation thereof, or destroys or diminishes its utility or affects it injuriously (S.425).

Punishment: –

For mischief, the punishment is up to 3 months or a fine or both (S.426).

Explanations 1 and 2 to the section provided that the property may belong to any person, even to the offender or to the offender himself and others jointly, and the offender need not intend loss or damage to the owner.

Illustration

A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z, intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z, A has committed mischief.[24]

II] Aggravated Forms of Mischief (Ss.427 to 440)

The following are aggravated forms of mischief: –

Committing mischief and thereby causing damage amounting to fifty rupees or more (S.427).
Mischief by killing, poisoning, rendering useless or maiming any animal of the value of 10 rupees or more (S.428).
Mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless an elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow, ox or any animal of the value of 50 rupees or upwards (S.429).
Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or wrongfully diminishing supply of water for agricultural purposes or food or drink, or cleanliness, etc. (S.430).
Mischief by injury to a public road, bridge, river or channel so as to render it impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property (S.431).
Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage (S.432).
Mischief by destroying, moving, or rendering less useful a lighthouse or sea mark or by exhibiting a false light (S.433).
Mischief by destroying, moving, or rendering less useful any landmark fixed by the authority of a public servant (S.434).
Mischief by fire or explosive substances, with intent to cause damage to the amount of Rs.100 or upwards or where the property is agricultural produce, of the value of ten rupees or upwards (S.435).
Mischief by fire or explosive substance, with intent to destroy any building used as a place of worship, human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property (S.436).
Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe, decked vessel or a vessel of 20 tons or more (S.437).
Mischief or attempt to commit mischief, as described above, with fire or any explosive substance (S.438).
Intentionally running a vessel aground or ashore, with intent to commit theft or misappropriation of property (S.439).
Mischief committed after preparation made for causing any person death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of death, hurt, or wrongful restraint (S.440)

*****

[1] चोरी

[2] e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not therefore, be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust.

f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies, Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and it A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.
g) A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.
i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed hat, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly.
j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the of Z’s possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out Z’s possession, without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property, in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, without Z’s consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has, therefore committed theft.
m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent, for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he has Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
n) A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives money, food and clothes which A knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
o) A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that property out of Z’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.

[3] लबाडीचा / अप्रामाणिक उद्देष [बेईमानी का इरादा]

[4] मालमत्ता हलवणे/ बाजुला घेणे [संपत्ति का स्थानांतरण/हटाना]

[5] खंडणी [जबरन वसूली]

[6] (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.

(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion.

[7] लुट/ लुटमार [लुट]

[8] चोरी केव्हा लुटमार होते? [चोरी कब लुट बन जाती है?]

[9] खंडणी केव्हा लुटमार होते? [जबरन वसूली लूट कब बन जाती है?]

[10] (c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.

(d) A obtains property from Z by saying – “Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees.” This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

[11] दरोडा [डकैती]

[12] मालमत्तेचा अपहार [संपत्ति का अपहार]]

[13]

A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence and takes away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
A and B, being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B’s possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

[14]

(c) A finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has lost the cheque. But the name of the person, who has drawn the cheque appears, A knows that his person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A appropriates the cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence under this section.

(d) A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse with the intention of restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence under this section.

A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs. A afterwards discovers that it belongs to

Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

[15] फौजदारी स्वरूपाचा विश्वासघात [आपराधिक विश्वासघात]

[16] Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Act.1952

[17] Employees State Insurance Act 1948

[18] (c ) A, residing in Calcutta, is an agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to invest the same in company’ paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal for Z instead of buying Company’s paper, here, though Z should suffer loss and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss yet A not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

(e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

[19] रूपांतर करणे/परीवर्तन करणे [परिवर्तित/परिवर्तित करना]

[20] फसवनूक [धोखाधड़ी]

[21] In M/s Astic Life Sciences Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra (2008 All MR 1054).

Facts :- Accused was alleged to have cheated by breach of contract.

Held :- Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist from the beginning of the transaction.

[22] (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d) A, by pretending payment for an article (draws) a bill on a house with which A keeps no money and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e) A, by pleading as diamond’s articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money sends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

(h) A intentionally deceived Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z which he has not performed and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells of mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

[23] नासधुस/अगळीक. [संपत्ती की हानि]

[24]

A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and thus causes damage to Z. A has committed mischief.
A, having insured a ship voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing damage to the underwriters; A has committed mischief.
A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief.
A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
A causes cattle to enter upon the field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A has committed mischief.