Crimes Against Property | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Introduction

• One of the basic principles of Criminal law is incorporated in the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum. nisi mens sit rea'. 

• This means that to constitute a crime, the physical act of the offence, as well as the mental intent of the offender, must correspond/match. 
• To put it simply, the person must have intended the act (ruling out genuine accidents). 
• It is not sufficient to prove that a person of innocent mind has committed an act whose physical ingredients fall within the definition of an offence; the guilty intent of the offender at the time of the commission of the offence also needs to be established In other words, it is necessary to establish the mental element that is requisite for the crime to be committed (as per the definition of the offence/crime). 
• By mental intent, it is meant the criminal intention or the guilty state of mind of the person committing the act, i.e. either the clear and manifest intention to commit that particular criminal act or the knowledge of the nature of the act being committed and its consequences, or carelessness/ recklessness/ indifference as to the nature of the act itself or its consequences. Thus, no offence is proved unless the act and the mental intent are proved, which means 

Crime = Actus Reus (physical act) + Mens Rea (accompanying mental element)

Q.1. Facts: If I accidentally trip and fall while walking on the pavement and seriously hurt a fellow pedestrian, would I be guilty of a crime?

The answer is NO, because in this case, even if the act of injury was committed I had no intention to do it! There was 'actus reus' but no 'mens rea' Just remember the concept very simply - I must not only have done the wrongful act. I must also have intended to do that particular wrongful act!

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Explanation: Unsoundness of mind is a stage when a man is incapable of understanding the nature and course of his action.

Crimes Against Property

1. Theft

The crime of theft is dealt with in Section 378 of the IPC. Theft is defined as, ' 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 '.

• 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
• The term 'dishonestly' has also been defined in the IPC. ‘Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.'
• Reading these two sections together, we may conclude that whoever takes any moveable property out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent, with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another, and moves the property in accordance with such an objective, commits theft as per the provisions of the IPC.
• Thus, mere taking without the dishonest intention, i.e without the intention to either cause wrongful gain to any person or wrongful loss to any other person, is not theft So long as the taking of the property causes a wrongful loss to the owner of the property, it falls within the purview of the IPC, though it is important to remember that there is absolutely no requirement that the taker herself/ himself should have a wrongful gain from such act.

Essential Ingredients of Theft

The absence of the person's consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time, are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft (K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369).

1. Intending to take dishonestly - Dishonest intention exists when the person so taking the property intends to cause wrongful gain (even temporary) to himself or wrongful loss to the other; either is sufficient. This intention is known as animus furandi (intention to steal) and without it the offence of theft is not complete. Thus, where a respectable person just pinches the cycle of another person, as his own cycle at the time was missing and brings it back, it was held that no theft was committed by him.
   Theft by wife: Where a wife removes the property of her husband left in her custody from his house with dishonest intention, she commits theft. However, a Hindu woman does not commit theft by removing her stridhan out of the custody of her husband.
   Theft by servant: A servant is not guilty of theft when what he does is at his masters bidding unless he participates in his masters knowledge of the dishonest nature of the acts.
    

2. Any movable property - A boat, valuable security, a Hindu idol, stones or sand or minerals when severed from earth is movable property. There is no theft of wild animals, birds, etc. at large, but there is a theft of tamed animals. A human body, whether living or dead, cannot be the subject of theft.
    

3. Taking out of the possession of another person - It does not matter for the purposes of theft that the person from whose possession the property is taken is not the true owner or has an apparent and not real title to the property. Possession and not ownership is the essential element in the offence. A theft is a theft. Thus, where a person steals a thing from a thief he is guilty of theft.
   Removing ornaments from a dead body cannot be taking property out of possession of a person and thus not a theft, but it is a criminal misappropriation, as also in the case of picking up a lost property. Where the owner removes a property which has been attached by the court, he has committed a theft.
    

4. Taking without consent - Consent obtained by false representation which leads to a misconception of facts will not be a valid consent.
    

5. Moving property in order to such taking - Till the property is moved, no offence of theft can be committed even if the alleged offender had intended to take dishonestly the property out of the possession of any person without his consent.

Q.1. Facts: Veerappan, while cutting sandalwood trees in a Government Reserve Forest, was caught by the police as he and his associates started chopping the tree. As soon as Veerappan and his associates started to chop the tree, they caused it 'to move'. Veerappan-and his associates started chopping the tree with the intention of taking it with them, i.e. with the intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the government. As such, they intended to take the tree dishonestly and in pursuance of the same, began to chop the tree. They also did not have the government's consent to remove the tree.

Solution: As per Explanation 1 to the Section, a tree is immoveable property till it has been severed from the earth. Till such time as it is still attached to the earth, it constitutes immoveable property, the taking of which does not qualify as theft. Therefore, the severance of the tree not having been completed, the property was not a moveable property This means that Veerappan does not fulfil the criteria laid down in the section for theft.

Q.2. Facts: Kumud left her less valuable bangle in the casket by mistake. Though she did take the bangle out of the possession of the shop-owner without taking the consent of the owner, causing a loss to the owner. she did not have a dishonest intention. She did not take the bangle with the purpose of causing wrongful gain to herself or wrongful loss to the shop.

Solution: Thus, even though her actions have resulted in wrongful loss to the shop-owner, she is not liable for theft since she did not possess the requisite dishonest intention.

2. Extortion

Section 383 of IPC defines extortion.  ‘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 in fear to deliver to any person so put in fear 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".

Points to note:

• The phrase used is 'any injury - injury need not necessarily be physical in nature. Injury to reputation or character may also be an injury - what needs to be proved is an injury of a real nature so as to disturb the mind of a reasonable man. Also, what needs to be proved is that a person was put in fear of injury to himself or another

• deliver to any person...’ means the person who puts a person in fear may be different from the person to whom property is delivered.

Essential Ingredients of Extortion

The chief elements of extortion (Black mail) are the intentional putting of a person in fear of injury to himself or another and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security.

1. Puts any person in fear of injury - The fear must be of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and takes away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.
   The threats under this section had nothing to do with the truth of the accusation. The guilt or innocence of the party threatened is immaterial. The word injury under this section is not necessarily physical (it includes reputation or property). Even a terror of a criminal charge whether true or false amounts to a fear of injury.
   
   

2. Dishonest inducement - It is not sufficient that there should be wrongful loss caused to an individual but the person putting that individual in fear of injury have the intention that wrongful loss should be caused.
    

3. Delivery of property or valuable security by the person put in fear to any person - Where a person through fear offers no resistance to the carrying off his property, but does not deliver any of the property to those who carry it away; the offence committed is not extortion but robbery. The offence of extortion is not complete until actual delivery of property by the person put under fear. Further, the threat maybe used by one person and the property may be received by another person.

3. Dishonest misappropriation of property

'Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both'

• When the property of another person comes into possession of the offender and is dishonestly converted or misappropriated either temporarily or permanently. No entrustment is required for this offence.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Misappropriation

• The offence of criminal misappropriation consists in dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his own use any movable property. 
• It takes place when the possession has been innocently come by, but where, a subsequent change of intention or from the knowledge of some new fact with which the party was not previously acquainted, the retaining becomes wrongful and fraudulent. 
• It is the mental act of fraudulent misappropriation (dishonest intention) that demarcates an act of embezzlement (e.g. suits by beneficiaries against trustees for default of the trustees) which is a civil wrong from the offence of criminal breach of trust.

4. 

Criminal Breach of Trust

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust

1. There should be an entrustment by one person to another of the property, or with any dominion over property;

2. such entrustment must be in the trust;

3. there must have been a misappropriation or conversion to his own use by the person who received the property in trust;

4. such conversion or retention of the property must be against or in violation of any direction, or law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

Criminal Misappropriation of Property vs. Criminal Breach Of Trust 

• In the offence of Criminal breach of trust, there is a contractual relationship between the parties. Whereas, in the offence of criminal misappropriation of property, no contractual relationship exists between the parties.
• In a criminal breach of trust, conversion takes place with respect to the property held by a person in a fiduciary capacity. But in criminal misappropriation of property, the person does not hold the property in a fiduciary relationship; rather it comes to the possession of the offender in any manner.
• In a criminal breach of trust, the property is lawfully entrusted to the offender. And the offender holds the property subject to some obligations, duties or trust but he dishonestly misappropriates it. 
• On the other hand, in criminal misappropriation of property, possession of the property is acquired by the offender not lawfully but casually or otherwise and the offender misappropriates the property afterwards.

5. Mischief

"Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief'.''

• It's extremely important to understand the principle. Mischief requires "an injury to property" with "intention of causing wrongful loss to any person or public." 
• It is also specified that the person to whom the loss is wrongfully caused "need not be the owner."

Points to note: 

• Imagine that the offence of mischief has been committed, is it necessary that the offender should have intended to cause injury to the owner of the property that has been destroyed? No, because to make out an offence of mischief, it is sufficient if you can show that the offender intended to cause, or knew that s/he was likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether or not it belongs to that person.

Ingredients of mischief as given in section 405 are as under:

1. Intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person;
   

2. Causing destruction of property or any change in the same or in the situation;
   

3. by such change the property must be destroyed or its value is diminished or its utility is marred. The punishments for this offence is inflicted vide section 426 and it is only punishment for 3 months or with fine or with both. Different types of mischievous are dealt in sections 427 to 440.

6. Cheating

'Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or 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.'
• The term dishonestly has been discussed above; the term ‘Fraudulently’ is defined in Section 25 as a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with an intent to defraud but not otherwise.
• Deceive means to cause someone to believe something that it is not true.

Ingredients of the Offence

The ingredients of the offence are:

1. deception of a person;
2. to fraudulently or dishonestly induced her/ him to
   a.  deliver any property to any person, or
   b. consent that any person shall retain any property 
   OR
3. the deceived person should intentionally be induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, such act causing or being likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. (The person who practices deception need not have contemplated such damage, though the damage, a natural and probable result of the act that the deceived person was induced to perform, should occur because the deceived person has acted under the influence of the deception.)

• There is a fine distinction here; it is not sufficient if a false representation is made It is necessary that the person making the false representation should know it to be false, but should make it in order to deceive the person to whom it is made. Such a false representation may be made either through words or inferred through conduct or the Surrounding Circumstances.
• To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to prove that a dishonest or fraudulent intention existed in the mind of the deceiver at the time of making the representation that induced the deceived person to do or omit to do something. Remember here that the intention of the victim is irrelevant - all you need to do is check whether the person making the false representation did so fraudulently or dishonestly, in order to deceive the victim. order to deceive the victim.

Q.1. Facts A person A falsely pretends 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. Has A committed the crime of cheating?

Solution: In the problem, A has falsely represented himself to be a sales tax officer. Believing this to be true, and hoping to get a favourable assessment, B agrees to sell a costly television to A on an installment basis It seems apparent from the facts that A represented himself to be a sales tax officer knowing it to be incorrect, hoping to gain something from B, for which it was never his intention to pay, for if he was actually willing to pay for the television, he need not have represented himself to be a sales tax officer. When A bought a costly television from B on an installment basis, A never had the intention of paying the installments.

The cheating occurred when a false representation was made with the fraudulent intention of inducing B to deliver some property to A. The non payment of instalments is only one aspect of the entire plan to cheat A. B’s motivation may have been to get a favourable assessment, but if A had not represented himself to be a sales tax officer, such a motivation would not have arisen in B either. Thus, A has in fact committed cheating at the time of making the representation, hoping to gain from it, and never having the intention to lawfully procure the property.

7. Criminal trespass

Offences of this type are dealt in sections 441 to 460.  Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property. Unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.

• The 3 essential heads of this offence are;

1. Entry into the property which is in possession of other person without consent;
   

2. if such entry is with permission then staying after the permission is withdrawn, that is , if the said entry was lawful in the beginning, but if one remains there unlawfully afterwards;
   

3. The entry and remaining there unlawfully with the intention:
   (a) To commit offence; 
   (b) To insult, annoy or intimidate the person who is in possession of property.

This offence is defined in section 440 of the code. There are several types of trespass as house trespass, house breaking, and lurking house trespass.  

For example:

1. A had shot a dear near B’s land, he followed it into B’s land for the purpose of killing it, although he was warned of the land beforehand by B. Here A was not guilty because the requisite intent was absent.

2. A enters a house with intention of committing theft. But moved by the poverty of the house-holder he drops a rupee note and left the place. In this case, A will be liable for criminal trespass.

Factual Situation: A, a student wrote love letters to an innocent girl, who is a perfect stranger to him and the student entered the girl’s house to deliver the letters. Such an act of the student was likely to bring annoyance to the girl.
Here, when the student enters the girl’s house to deliver such a letter and to annoy her his act constitutes the offence of criminal trespass.

8. Robbery

Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion or of both. 

• According to Sec. 390, Theft is robbery if, in the process of committing theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property (obtained by theft), the offender, causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, o of instant wrongful restraint.
• Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or some other person.

9. Dacoity

The offence of dacoity is defined in section 391 of the Indian Penal code. 

• In order to commit dacoity, the minimum number of persons required is five. 
• The next requirement is that those five persons must act conjointly i.e with prior planning and a common intention. 
• Thus, a robbery that is committed or attempted to be committed conjointly by five or more persons amounts to dacoity.

10. Sedition

‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine maybe added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine may be added, or with fine.'

• Explanation 1: The expression “disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this Section '
• Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administration or other action of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this Section.'

Ingredients of the Offence

1.  Whoever, by words (spoken or written), by signs, or by visible representations;
2. Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India; commits sedition.

Now, for Legal Reasoning questions, you need to know nothing apart from of course meaning of the above-mentioned words and phrases - you only need to ascertain the presence of these two elements in order to prove sedition. For Legal Knowledge, the principle of sedition needs to be understood against the backdrop of issues discussed in the next two paragraphs.

Q.1. Facts: The opposition leader stated in a public meeting that “This government of scoundrels, bootleggers and scamsters should be thrown out. They do not deserve your allegiance Teach them a lesson at the earliest"

Solution: From the words it is clear that the words attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India It is obvious that the words are sufficient to cause disaffection among the people. Hence, it is a fit case for sedition.

Wrongful Restrainment and Wrongful Confinement

1. Wrongful Restraint: Wrongful restraint is partial restraint of the personal liberty of a man. Every man’s person is sacred and free and law penalizes those who abridge the personal liberty of another. The essential ingredients of wrongful restraint are:

(a) Voluntary obstruction of a person.

(b) The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.

For Example:

• A builds a wall across a path along which Z has a right to pass. A is guilty of wrongful restraint.

• A threatens to set a sewage dog at Z. If Z goes along a path along which Z has a right to go. Here A commits the offence of wrongful restraint

Exception: The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence of wrongful restraint.

For Example, A prevents the passage of animals by putting certain obstructions in a road over which B had a right of passage for men and cattle leaving a portion of the way for men to pass.

Principle: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Factual Situation: The driver of a bus purposely stopped the bus across the road in such a manner as to prevent another bus that was coming from behind, from proceeding further.

Here the bus driver is guilty of wrongful restraint.

2. Wrongful Confinement:

Wrongful Confinement is a kind of wrongful restraint in which a person is kept within the limits out of which he wishes to go and has a right to go. There must be a total restraint of the personal liberty of a person and not merely a partial restraint to constitute confinement.

Essential ingredients are:

• Wrongful restraint of a person.

• Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits

Illustrations

• A causes Z to go within a walled space and locks Z in, Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond circumscribing line of the wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

• A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Principle: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

Factual Situation: A was on his journey by car from Allahabad to Kanpur B met him on the way and requested a lift upto Fatehpur an intermediate town. A agreed to his request but on reaching Fatehpur did not drop B there in spite of his repeated requests. B is carried over to Kanpur. Here A is guilty of wrongfully confining B.