Theft

s378
- whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of
the possession of any person without that persons consent, is said
to commit theft.
Elements of theft
1. Intention to take dishonestly; - physical element
2. The property must be movable; - fault element
Intention to take dishonestly
Ward v PP [1953] MLJ 153
The appellants were convicted of theft of certain articles. They admitted
taking the articles but had no criminal intention and will return them. They
also claimed that the owner had only been deprived of possession of the
articles for a short time.
Held: It should be theft to take goods in order to keep the person entitled
to possession of them out of possession of them for a time, although the
taker did not intend to himself appropriate them or to entirely deprive the
owner of them
Mustaza Bin Abdul Majid v Public Prosecutor
Held: The ability to pay does not, by itself, negative an intention to steal.
Contrariwise, the finding made by the district judge that the appellant did
not lose his wallet and he therefore never had enough money to pay for
the carton quite clearly strengthens the inference that the appellant
possessed the requisite dishonest intention.
Movement
pp v ramiah - taking of property as security of debt is a crime
In this case, the 3 accused were charged for a house breaking and theft
for removing a trunk which was in possession of the victim. The trunk with
its contents was found several days later in the possession of one of the
accused. The accused argued that the victim owed him money and the
trunk was removed because it was for the purpose of security for the
victim to pay the debt. The court then convicted them for theft.
Raja Mohamed v R[1963] MLJ 339

appellant chemical mixer- removed 2 dozen glasses from store on

ground floor 2nd floor no evidence of removed out of victims
possession but had dishonest intention moves the property in order
to move the property out of possession of the company.
A was charged with theft of property in the possession of his employer. He
claimed that the property were removed but they had not been removed
out of the possession of the company.
Held: Appeal dismissed. It is sufficient
if the person who formed such dishonest intention moves that property in
order to such taking; and it is not necessary to move that property out of
the possession of the other person
http://www.slideshare.net/AhmadFarouqAmir/7-robbery?related=2
Robbery s390 PC

s390 (1)- in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

s390(2)- theft is robbery, if, in order to commit theft, or in committing

the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful
restraint, or fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint
s390(3)-extortion is robbery, if the offender, at the time of committing
the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear and commits the
extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or
of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and,
by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to
deliver up the thing extorted
-

The essence of the offence of robbery is that

the violence caused or attempted to be caused, is of the theft,
either in order to, or in committing, or in carrying
away or attempting to carry away the proceeds of the theft.
According to Ratanlal & Dhiralal- for that end in s390 means that
the offender for the end of committing theft, or carrying away or
attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, voluntarily
causes or attempts to cause to any person, death, or hurt or
wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of
instant wrongful restraint.
Death, hurt or wrongful restraint must be caused in committing
theft, or in carrying away property obtained by theft.
PP v Chia Poh Yee.

One fine day, the accused got into the same lift as a 7 year old boy.
He reached into the boys pocket and removed 40c, slapping him
once on the face and ordering him not to take the lift again. The guy
was charged with robbery with hurt, and a sentence of 7 years, 12
strokes of the cane was imposed on him. Insane right
On appeal, the CJ probably felt sad for him? Or really just wants to
apply the law as it is. There definitely was theft of 40c. But for theft
to be robbery, the accused must, for that end, cause or attempt to
cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or instant fear of any of the
3. Ok hope I didnt lose you there.
Held: that the slapping was not for the purpose of the theft,
and hence the sentence was reduced back to one of theft,
and the sentence was reduced to 2 years.
Criminal misappropriation of property
Dishonest misappropriation of property
403. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own
use movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term
which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Zs 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.
(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Zs house in Zs
absence and
takes away a book without Zs express consent. Here, if A was under
the
impression that he had Zs 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.
(c) A and B being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of
Bs
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.
Explanation 1.A dishonest misappropriation for a time 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 with
a banker as a
security for a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. A has
committed an
offence under this section.
Explanation 2.A person who finds property not in the possession of
any
other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting
it for, 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 a reasonable time to enable the owner to
claim it.
What are reasonable means, or what is a reasonable time in such
a case, 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 believe that the real
owner cannot be found.
Illustrations
(a) A finds a dollar on the high road, not knowing to whom the dollar
belongs.
A picks up the dollar. Here A has not committed the offence defined
in this
section.
(b) A finds a letter on the high 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.

(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 this 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.
(e) A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he
afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his
own use.
A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(f) 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.
Physical element D misappropriates; or converts to his own use;
movable property
Fault element: Dishonesty (see section 24)
Proof of fault element prosecution must prove beyond all
reasonable doubt
Penalty for non-aggravated offences max 2 years fine or both
s.404 dead person property (a) general is max 3 years and liable
to fine (b) by the deceased servant or clerk is max 7 years and liable
to fine
Wong Seng Kwan v Public Prosecutor
The facts of the case were that the victim was gambling at the
Marina Bay Sands Casino, when unknown to her, she dropped her
wallet. Within two minutes, the accused had found her wallet, picked
it up and went to visit
the restroom. Five minutes later, the accused emerged from the
restroom, without the wallet and was then detained by the security
staff of the Casino. The Trial Judge convicted the accused of
dishonest misappropriation of property.
Held: criminal liability of the Finder would only attach where the true
owner can be ascertained and / or identified by the Finder. Further,
the Court also ruled that apart from taking the reasonable steps to

locate the owner, the Finder should also keep the lost chattel for a
reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it. The Court opined
that a Finder who found a valuable item with no apparent
identification marks and proceeded to sell it immediately would also
be criminally liable for dishonest misappropriation.

Criminal breach of trust

-

is defined in section 405 as a person is entrusted in any manner

over property or dominion over property and the person dishonestly
convert to his own use or dishonestly uses or disposes the property
in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract or willfully
suffers any other person, he is commit criminal breach of trust.
In determining the liability of D, we must whether his act falls within
the meaning of the offence. There are three elements must be
satisfied:

Firstly, there must be some entrustment or dominion of property to

the accused.
Secondly, there must dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his
own use, or dishonestly use or dispose of the property or willfully
suffers another person to do so.
Lastly, dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction
of law or legal contract.

Precondition the accused has been trusted with property or dominion

over property
Physical Element 1. Misappropriate 2. Conversion. 3. Use or disposal in
violation of direction of law or legal contract 4. Suffering - another person
to do 1 to 3
Fault element for 1 to 3 is dishonesty and 4 is wilfully
Entrustment
Gopalakrishnan v PP high court held that when given blank cheques, she
had been entrusted with the entire value of the funds to which the
cheques could give access and not any lesser amount
PP v Koh Beng Oon sub pledge of entrustment documents with no
restrictions is not considered misappropriation
Viswanathan v PP property alleged to be misappropriated was not the
property entrusted to the appellant as required under s 405 of the Penal
Code
Dominion

Ho Chi Wan Colman v PP sufficient if the accused exercises general

responsibility for the goods in question
Violation of any Direction of Law
Cheam Tat Pang breach of directors duties to act honestly under s 157(1)
of Companies Act would seriously prejudice directors if breach of 157
would put them liable for CBT. Prescribing a mode in s.405 requires more
than just a exhortation to act honestly. Companies Act was meant for civil
not criminal cases
Cheating (415 -420)
Physical elements: the accused deceived the victim and thereby induced
the victim to:
1. Deliver property to any person; or to
2. Consent to another person retaining property; or to
3. Do or omit to do something which causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or
property.
Fault elements: for 1 and 2 is fraudulently or dishonestly. For 3. It is
intentionally
Gunasegaram v PP event viewed as a whole and not to pinpoint a
single event in order to ascertain if victim was deceived
Seaward v PP AND Rahj Kamal v PP vicarious deceiption through
affiliates or associates (need not be direct deception)
Seaward v PP as long as deceptive act played some part, it can be
cheating