CONCEPT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

Manipal University Jaipur

School of Law

Supervised by- Submitted by-

Prof. T. Bhattacharyya Anshul Ranjan Srivastava
161401020
B.A.LL.B (Hons.)
III Semester

1
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Anshul Ranjan Srivastava, student of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) semester
III, School of Law Manipal University Jaipur has completed the project work entitled
Concept of Movable Property under the Indian Penal Code under my supervision and
guidance.
It is further certified that the candidate has made sincere efforts for the completion of this
project.

________________
Prof. T. Bhattacharyya

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I hereby acknowledge the help and support of the teachers, who helped me in compiling this
project. I thank the faculty and management of Manipal University Jaipur, School of Law, as
the resources that were necessary to complete the project were provided by them.
I am highly indebted to my teacher Prof. T. Bhattacharyya for his guidance and constant
supervision as well as for providing necessary knowledge regarding the subject at hand and
also for her support in completing the project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and friends for their kind
cooperation and encouragement which help me in completion of this project.

Anshul Ranjan Srivastava

3
Contents
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................................................ 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
OFFENCE AGAINST MOVABLE PROPERTY ............................................................................................... 6
OF THEFT (Section 378-382) ................................................................................................................... 6
OF EXTORTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
OF ROBBERY ............................................................................................................................................ 9
OF DECOITY-: ......................................................................................................................................... 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY- ..................................................................................................................................... 11
WEBLIOGRAPHY- ................................................................................................................................... 11

4
INTRODUCTION

Legal Provisions of Section 22 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Movable property:

The definition is not exhaustive as is clear from the use of the words are intended to
include. The expression movable property has been defined in some other Acts also
including the General Clauses Act, 1897 vide section 3 (36). The definitions are different and
are limited to the respective statutes wherein defined. It has been held that the word
property has a much wider meaning in the Code.

Corporeal property

Corporeal property means property which can be perceived by the senses. The Supreme
Court has held in Avlar Singli v. State? that electricity is not a movable property. Fish is a
movable property, and so is an idol. Human body, whether living or dead, is not a movable
property but a mummy is.

Land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached
to the earth

The definition makes a distinction between land and earth. Land and things attached to the
earth are immovable property. Such land and things when detached from the earth become
movable property. Similarly, so long as something is fastened to anything which is attached
to the earth, it is immovable property. But as soon as the same is unfastened, it becomes a
movable property.

5
OFFENCE AGAINST MOVABLE PROPERTY

Offence against property finds a prominent place in the penal code, the basic elements
common to the offences under this chapter is Dishonestly, which the code describes as the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another but the
manner in which dishonestly is exercised differs in different cases. Whoever does anything
with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss or another person
is said to do that thing dishonestly. Now the question comes what is wrongful gain and
wrongful loss? For that our Indian penal code section 23 says about wrongful gain and
wrongful loss. This section Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means if property to which
the person losing it is legally entitled. And wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of
property to which the person losing is legally entitled. For human society to regulate its
administration it requires the protection of not only the person of individuals, but also of their
property. In short we can say that the offences which effects or harm to the public property is
considered as offence against property.

What are the areas comes under this? The basic element common to the offences under this
chapter is dishonesty which the code describes as the intention of causing wrongful gain to on
e person to wrongful loss to another. A stage is however reached when violations of property
rights become so violent, mischievous of fraudulent that the state finds it necessary to step in
an utilize the machinery for its criminal law to afford protection to property in a speedy and
effective way. For this it has divide into 10 heads (a) theft (b)extortion (c)Robbery and
dacoity (d)criminal misappropriation of property (e) Criminal breach of trust (f) Receiving
stolen property (g) Cheating (h) Fraudulent disposal of property (i)Mischief (j)Criminal
trespass.

OF THEFT (Section 378-382)

Section 378 says that whoever intended to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that persons consent moves that property in order to such
taking is said to commit theft. For instance- A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the
house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Zs possession, and if a dishonestly removes it, A
commits theft. This section defines theft and nest section prescribes punishment thereof. In
order to constitute the offence of theft, there must exist following ingredients.

a) The accused must have an intention to taking dishonestly;

Note- The word dishonestly means as is used in this section, does not carry its ordinary
meaning it is a technical term which has been expressly defined in section 24 of IPC itself. A
person can be said to have said to have dishonest intention If, in taking the property, it is his
intention to cause gain, by unlawful means of the property to which the persons so gaining is
not legally entitles or to cause loss by unlawfully means of property to which the person so
losing is legally entitled.

6
A person may be the guilty of theft of his own property if he takes it dishonestly from other
see ills. (j) and (k). where the accused took a bundle belonging to himself which was in the
possession f a police constable and for which the constable was accountable it was held that
he constable had special property in it and that therefore the accused was guilty of theft.
There is no presumption of law that husband a wife constitute one person in India for the
purpose of criminal law. If the wife removes her husbands property from his house with
dishonest intention husband and without his consent her SRTIDHAN (woman property).
Cannot be convicted of theft because this species of properly belong s to her absolutely. Os
also a husband can Be convicted if he steals his wifes STRIDHAN. But in MAHOMEDAN
law it is laid down that a MAHOMEDAN wife may be convicted of stealing from her
husband because under this system of law there does not exist the same union of interest
between husband and wife as exists between an English husband and wife. The same
reasoning would apply in the case of a MAHOMEDAN husband.

(b)The subject of the theft must be some moveable property.

Explanation- if a person takes anything of another dishonestly in his possession by moving it

then only it is theft if it is not attached to the land, if a sale of trees belonging to tree others
and not cut down at the time of sale does not constitute theft. But removable of a mans trees
blown down by a storm amounts to theft.

Taking salt against the will of the government from a swamp which is government property
and is guarded by the police is theft Electricity not being moveable property, cannot be the
subject of theft under the Indian penal code. But section 39 of the Indian electricity act 1910
brings the act of dishonest abstraction consumption or use of electricity within the meaning of
theft as understood in the Indian penal code.

(c) The said moveable property must be taken out of the possession of any person;

Notes-The term must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to .be in possession of a
thing when he can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of others. The property is in his
custody when he cannot deal with it as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another
as in the case of a servant holding property for his master. To constitute theft the property
must have in the possession of someone and the possession of someone and then removed
from his possession.

CASE RELATING TO THEFT.

In a case K.N.MEHARA v. STATE OF RAJSTHAN AIR 195 7 SC 369 and in

RAMRATAN V STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1965 SC 926,930, the ingredients of theft have
defined. In this case in this case there were two persons K.N.Mehara and M.Z.Philips were
employed in Indian air force. Both of them were convicted under s 379 IPC for the theft of an
aircraft. Both the accused person were cadets on training in the Indian air force academy at
jodhpur. Had been discharged from the academy on the ground of the misconduct. Mehara
was a cadet receiving training as a navigator and was due to a flight in a Dakota as part of his
training. However on the scheduled day Mehara along with Philips took off not in Dakota but

7
a Harvard HT822 before the prescribed time without authorization and without absenting any
of the formalities which were perquisites for an air craft flight . they landed at a place in
Pakistan about 100 miles away from the India Pakistan blotted. Both of them were sent back
to Delhi and arrested reroute in jodhpur and protected and convicted theft. Thus we can
indentify the ingredients of theft as follow (i) dishonestly (ii)movable property (III)out of the
possession of any person (iv)without the consent of that person(v) moves that property.

To the prevention and control these kinds of offence section 379 provides punishment for
that. It lays down whomever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. There are
different kinds of theft have been indentified in our Indian penal code. Also it classifies
different kinds of theft done by different persons in different situation and provides separate
punishment for all these types of theft. I will be discussing different kinds of punishment as
follow.

OF EXTORTION

Section 383-390 of Indian penal code deals with different types of extortion, where section
383 whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any
other, and thereby dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to any person any property to
valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits extortion. For instance A threatens to publish a defamatory libel
concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. He has
committed extortion. Thus we can find the elements of extortion.

In fear of injury to that person or any other person

Dishonestly inducement of person to put in fear

To deliever any person ,property, of valuable security

Or anything sighned which may be converted into a valuable security

CASE REFERED

In a very famous case JADUNANDAN SINGH AND OTHERS V. EMEMPEROR AIR

1941.PAR. 129. It was decided that what will be the criteria of put in fear of a person? It was
decided that to convict a person in extortion it must be proved that the victims were put in
fear of injury to themselves or to others. Also decided that mere threat of divine displeasure
does not amount to extortion.

FACT OF THE CASE Narain Dusadh and Sheonand Singh, Were returning after the
inspection of some fields when the two petitioners and others assaulted them. The petitionet
gave a blow to Narain on the right leg and then other people assaulted Sheonandan.
Jadunandan, after this forcibly took the thumb impression of Narain on one piece of blank

8
paper and of Sheonandan on three blank papers. On these findings the two petitioners and
two others were convicted for extortion under s 384 of IPC.

TANULAL UDHA SINGH V EMPEROR is also relevant example of extortion. In this case
it was said the harm threatened or caused to be threatened must be form something illegally
done. According to se 43 of Indian penal code illegal means anything which is an offence or
which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action. To prevent these kinds
of offence in our society Indian penal code section 384 provides punishment whoever
commits extortion shall be punish with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

THEFT AND EXTORTION DISTINGUISHED

Extortion is thus distinguish from theft-

Extortion is committed but h wrongful obtaining of consent.

But In theft the offender takes without the owners consent.

The property obtained by extortion is not limited, Immovable property may be the subject of
extortion.

Whereas in theft only movable property are the subject to theft.

In extortion the property is obtained by intentional putting a person in fear of injury to that
person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing him to part with his property.

Whereas In theft the element of force does not arise.

OF ROBBERY

Section 390 of Indian penal code says that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
Now the question comes when a theft is robbery? And when extortion is robbery? For the
answer of this question in

Section 390 itself laid down Theft is robbery if in order or then committing of the theft or in
committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restrain of feat of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant
wrongful restrain. is said to committed robbery. It means every theft is robbery if in order to
committing it. In Harish Chandra v. State of U.P the victim boarded into train at Chakarpur
railway station the accused and the co- accused along with some other person entered the
same compartment. When the train reached Thankpur railway station at about 9:30 pm some
of the passengers started getting down from the compartment and there was a great rush. At

9
that time the accused forcibly took away the wrist watch of the victim and when the victim
raised an alarm the co-accused jumped out of the compartment. The victim also followed
them. Ant after all the accused were caught and the stuff were also recovered from them.
Both of the accused were charged for the robbery. It was argued on behalf of the defense that
since the slapping of the victim too place after that watch had been stolen the hurt could not
have been said to have been caused in order to commit the theft so as to bring the offence
under sec 390 IPC the supreme court rejected the argument. The ingredients of this section is-

1) There is attempts to cause a persons death or hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of instant
death or.

2) Of instant hurt or instant wrongful restrain.

Robbery is an aggravated form of extortion And every extortion is robbery also when in order
to committing it offender at the time of committing it is in the presence of the person put in
feat and commits the extortion by putting that person in feat of instant hurt or of instant
wrongful restrain to that person or to some other persons to do so putting in fear induces the
person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

OF DECOITY-:

Every dacoity is robbery. There is only slight difference between robbery and decoity.
Section 391 of Indian penal code says when five or more person conjointly commit or
attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commits a robbery and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt
amount to five or more every person so committing attempting or aiding is said to commit
dacoity. It is punishable under section 396 of Indian penal code it says whoever commits
decoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. In Kusho Mohtan v. State
of Bihar AIR 1980 sc 788; 1980 cr law journal 543 and. Shyam Bihari v. State of
Uttarpradesh AIR 1957 sc 320. are the related case for decoity and punishment for decoity.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBBERY AND DECOITY.

For an offence of dacoity, minimum number of the miscreants required is five. The term
dacoity is defined in section 391 IPC which clearly postulates that when five or more person
conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole number of person
conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and person present and aiding such
commission or attempt amount to five or more every person so committing attempting or
aiding Is said to commit dacoity. The offence of robbery is defined in section 390 IPC and as
is cleat from a perusal of the said section even a theft is robbery If during its commission the
offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restrain or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain. Whereas
robbery is punishable under section 392 IPC dacoity is punishable under se 395 of IPC.

10
BIBLIOGRAPHY-

1.) THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (7th edition) by Prof. T. Bhattacharyya.

WEBLIOGRAPHY-

1.) https://www.examrace.com/Study-Material/Law/Law-Property-Offence.html
2.) http://experiencesanddreams.blogspot.in/2010/03/offences-against-
propertytheftextortion.html

11
12