Theft -Section 378 of IPC | Section 303 of BNS | Ingredients | Illustration | Previous Paper | #llb

BNS: Section 303:

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable 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.

Ingredients:

Dishonest intention: The intention to take property dishonestly. Mens Rea
If done in Good Faith then no theft.
(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own property, takes that property out of B's possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.
Possession without consent: The property is taken out of the possession of another without their consent.
Illustration a, b,c,d
Wrongful gain/loss: The act causes wrongful gain to the taker or wrongful loss to the owner. (Vithal vs. state of Maharashtra 1982).

Important points on theft:

Movable Property?-- Movable only--pet/animal??
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to follow it. Here, if A's intention be dishonestly 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.
Moving of the Property–Movement?
Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable 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 moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Important points on theft:

Theft of own property? (Assault /Force)
Electricity is not a movable property and "theft of electricity" is punishable under Section 135, Electricity Act, 2003
Permanent character of theft?
1. K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (1957 AIR 369)

Facts: The accused took an aircraft without permission for a joyride and returned it later.
Held: Even temporary dishonest use of someone else’s property without consent constitutes theft.

2. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963 AIR 1094)
Facts: The accused, a government servant, removed a file from an office to help someone but returned it later.
Held: Dishonest intention at the time of taking is essential. Temporary taking without intent to cause wrongful loss was not considered theft.

Important points on theft:
Theft and Criminal Breach of trust.: (Consent)

(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.

Criminal misappropriation of property and theft: (Possesion)
(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 if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

Important points on theft:

Theft and mischief: (Wrongful Gain/Loss) Distinction By committing mischief, one does not gain anything, he only causes the other; by committing theft, the thief causes loss to another and property.

Extortion and theft: (Imovable property, consent, force)
Difference (i) As to property: Extortion can be committed with reference to any kind of property, movable or immovable;
(ii) As to consent: In extortion, consent of the victim is obtained wrongfully while in theft -without the owner's consent.
(iii) As to force: In extortion, element of force is present as its definition explains. In theft, the question of force does not arise