THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY

STUDENT NAME- RIYA SINGH

ENROLLMENT ID- 19FLICDDN01106

SECTION- “B”

BATCH AND YEAR- 2019-2024 & 02 YEAR

SEMESTER- FOURTH

DATE OF SUBMISSION- 5TH MAY, 2020

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO

RIYA SINGH MR. SUNEEL KUMAR

PROPERTY AND POSSESSION

Property means, something owned. It is right of ownership, or title of possession over

 a piece of real estate, like a swimming pool

 Something tangible or intangible, to which its owner has legal title, properties such as
copyrights and trademarks.
 possessions considered as a group.

Definition of Property

Blackstone: "The inferior hath no kind of property in the company, case of assistance of the
superior, as the superior is held to have in those of the inferior

Hobbs: "Of things held in property, those that are dearest to a man are his own life and limbs,
and in the next degree, in most men those that concern conjugal affection and after that riches
and means of living

Locke: "Every man has a property his own person. Every individual has a right to preserve
his property, that is, his wife, liberty and estate"

In its narrower sense property means only proprietary rights but not personal rights Thus
land, chattels, shares, debts, copyright, etc. constitute one's property but not his life, liberty or
reputation. In this sense, property includes any right which has an economic value in its
oldest and narrowest sense the term property includes nothing more than corporeal property,
i.e. the ownership of material objects alone.

KINDS OF PROPERTY

The following are the kinds of property:

1) Corporeal and Incorporeal Property: Corporeal property is the right of ownership in

material things, such as land, chattel, etc. Incorporeal properties are other proprietary
rights in rem.
2) Movable and Immovable Property: Property which can be moved from one place to
another like jewellery, household articles etc. is called movable property Property is
immovable if it cannot be transferred from one place to another, for e.g. houses,
buildings etc.
 3) Real and Personal Property: The former comprises all rights over land. while the latter
comprises all other proprietary rights, whether in rem or in personam. Modes of
acquiring property

The legal modes of acquiring property are

 Possession,
 Prescription,
 Agreement and
 Inheritance

1) Offence of theft

The word theft means the act of stealing.

The wrong of taking and removing of personal property, with intent to deprive the rightful
owner of the same. The word used under English law for the same offence is larceny.
Larceny means the unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the
intent of permanently depriving the owner.To constitute theft there must be a taking without
the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen
must be removed, however slightly, from its former position: and it must be, at least
momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

Cases
 State of Rajasthan v. Shanker 2000 cr lj 266
 Pyare lala bhagava v state of Rajasthan air 1936 sc 190

To constitute the offence of theft under the Indian Penal Code, the acts of the accused must fit
into Section 378, which defines the offence of theft.

The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of theft are

1) the property must be movable

2) the property must be in possession of owner or any other person authorised
3) presence of dishonest intention to dispossess the possessor
4) the act of dispossession is done without consent
5) the dispossession is with intention to take the thing
Punishment for Theft

The person found guilty for commission of offence of theft is punished with imprisonment
for three years or with fine or with both under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF THEFT

1) Theft in dwelling house

The offence of stealing things from

 a building
 or tent, or
 a vessel

Has been listed under aggravated forms of offence as it amounts to commission of offence by
trespassing into others' place.

The statutory penalty for such an offence is provided under Section 380 of the Indian penal
Code, which is imprisonment of either description extending to a term up to seven years, and
also liable for fine. The aim of this section is to provide greater security to property deposited
in a house, tent etc., of the owner. Therefore theft from a verandah, or the roof of a house or a
brake-van of a railway carriage does not amount to commission of theft under this section.
The offence has been identified as one of the aggravated forms of offence as it involves an
element of fear to the people living in the house. And if the house is used as a place for the
safe custody of the property, then it is considered as more severe offence, as the house or
place is intended to give greater security to the property kept in the house, as was held in
Gopal Chauhan vs. Smt Satya.

1) Theft by Servant

The theft of property, in possession of the master, by a clerk or servant is considered an

aggravated form of offence under Section 381 of the Indian penal Code This is so because the
employer's confidence in his servant may make tum leave many of his things exposed,
without continuous surveillance by him, thereby, giving scope to the servant to steal the
property easily. The punishment for commission of such an offence is imprisonment of either
description for a term extending up to seven years, along with fine. Whether the offence
committed by the servant falls under aggravated form or not, is to be determined by taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. As was cited in Jayantilalol.
Purshotamadas Panel State of Gujarat (1975)

2) Theft after making preparations for causing death or hurt:

The punishment for the offence of theft, committed after the preparations for causing
death, hurt or restraint in order to the commit theft has been provided under Section 382
of the Indian Penal Code. Where the offence of theft is committed after making all the
preparations for:

 Causing death
 or hurt,
 restraint,
 inflicting fear of death,

to any person in order to commit the offence of theft, has been identified as one of the
aggravated forms of offence. This is so because the accused who goes to steal.

EXTORTION

Definition of extortion under Section 383, IPC, 1860

“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 any
property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits extortion.”

Punishment for extortion under Section 384:

Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

ESSENTIALS OF EXTORTION

1. A person must intentionally put any person in fear of injury

2. Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person:

a) Property; or

b) Valuable security; or
c) Anything signed and sealed which can be converted into a valuable security

a) Extortion by putting a person in fear of death, grievous hurt or injury

The word "injury," as specified by Section 44 of the IPC, refers to any damage that is
unlawfully caused to a person's mind, body, reputation, or property. It should be such that it
overpowers the will of the person on whom it is exerted in such a way that the act (the act of
delivery) is no longer voluntary, i.e. it affects the person placed under fear's free consent.

Cases

1) According to Ramjee Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Cr LJ 137, ‘fear’ should be
of such a nature that it unsettles the mind of the person on whom it operates, and
takes from his acts the element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes
consent.
2) In Romesh Chandra Arora vs. The State (AIR 1960 SC 154), the accused took
a photograph of a naked boy and a girl by compelling them to take off
their clothes and extorted money from them by threatening to publish the
photograph. He was held guilty of extortion.

b) Dishonestly induce the person to deliver any property to anyone:

Dishonest inducement means that the person would not have decided to part with his
property otherwise, and that such parting results in him suffering an unjust loss.
Furthermore, the threatened individual must deliver the property. The nature of the
extortion offence is the delivery of property or valuable protection by the individual
who has been placed in fear. For the purposes of this section, property refers to both
movable and immovable assets.

In Habib Khan v State, 1952 CrLJ 17 held, 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.

ROBBERY
Section 390 of Indian penal Code defines the offence of robbery as in all, robbery is
either theft or extortion. In addition the section itself explains when theft amounts to
robbery and when extortion amounts to robbery.
The offence of robbery is
 theft plus violence or fear of instant violence
 extortion plus offender's presence
 Immediate delivery of the thing extorted.

Theft becomes robbery: When in order to the commit the offence of theft force is
used, while carrying away or attempting to carry away property. Thus if there was no
force used in committing theft, then the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence
of robbery. Therefore it is very obvious that there is no case of robbery when it falls
under the definition of theft or extortion. In reality it is always Confusing to
discriminate between the two.
Extortion becomes robbery when the extortionist is in the presence of the victim and
puts the victim in fear of instant death, or instant hurt or wrongfully restrains the
victim or any other person at the time of committing the offence. Out of such fear
induced by the offender, if the victim delivers the property to the offender then it
amounts to commission of offence of extortion.

Essential ingredients to constitute the offence of robbery:

The Offender should:
 cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint to the victim or any other person or
 Caused fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

As was held in Harish Chandra vs. State of UP (1976). The object of robbery must
be achieved to constitute the offence, else it does not amount to robbery. That is if
death, hurt or wrongful restraint has not been caused for the end of achieving the
object of theft or carrying away the stolen property,
then it does not amount to offence of robbery.

Violence in Robbery
The use of violence is essential for converting theft into robbery for the following
ends:
 to facilitate the commission of theft
 when committing theft

 to carry away the stolen property or

 attempt to carry away the stolen property obtained by theft.

Robbery is an Aggravated Form of Theft or Extortion

Under both theft and extortion dishonesty is an essential ingredient, therefore if there
is no element of dishonesty in an act there can be no offence of theft or extortion,
consequently there cannot be an offence of robbery too. To constitute the offence of
robbery first it must be established that the offence has essential ingredients of theft or
extortion, since robbery is nothing but an aggravated form
Of theft and extortion.

Punishment for Robbery

The punishment for the offence of robbery is rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, along with fine. If the offence has been committed on the
high way between sunset and sunrise the period of imprisonment may extend up to
fourteen years. The punishment is rigorous as there is an element of violence, leading
to death or causing 345hurt or even threat to cause death.

Attempt to robbery
Section 393 of Indian penal Code makes the attempt to commit robbery also
punishable. The punishment for such an offence is imprisonment for a term of Seven
years and fine.

DACOITY
The offence of Dacoity is defined under section 391, and punishment for commission
of such an offence is mentioned under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
To constitute the offence of dacoity there must be:
 five or more persons acting in association or
  attempting to commit the act of robbery or
 committing robbery and
 all the five persons must be involved in the act.

Dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons. The total number of persons
must be five in whatever combinations, and at whatever level including key persons
or aides. All the five must be involved in either

 committing or
 attempting to commit or
 aiding the commission of robbery.

AGGRAVATED FORM OF DACOITY

 Dacoity with Murder

Dacoity with murder has been identified as one of the aggravated form of Dacoity
under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 396 deals with the offence
of committing murder in course of committing Dacoity. Under the section if in
the course of committing robbery conjointly, one of them happens to commit the
offence of murder, even if all of them did not participate in commission of
murder all are made vicariously liable for the act of murder.

It is not needed to prove that the murder was committed by any one particular
member of the gang or that it was a common intention of the gang to commit the
murder or that other members of the gang expected the murder to take place, nor
it is necessary to prove that the murder was committed jointly by all the members
of the gang.

All that is required to be established by the prosecution is that the murder had
been committed while committing dacoity. If that is established, then all the
members of the gang who have committed dacoity, are also equally liable for the
murder under this section, as held in Syam Behari vs. State of UP (1957)

Robbery and dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:

 Section 397 states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender
uses any deadly weapon, and causes death or grievous hurt to any person or attempts
to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, then he is punished with imprisonment
for seven years. The section prescribes a minimum punishment for the offence, and
the judge can use his discretion, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. The essential requirements for this section are:

 the offence of either dacoity or robbery must have been committed

 the offender must have participated in the offence
 the offender must have used deadly weapon, or caused grievous hurt or must
have attempted to cause hurt or death the offender must have used the weapon
at the time of committing dacoity or robbery.
Punishment for dacoity
The attempt to commit the offence of robbery or dacoity armed with any deadly
weapons, and punishment for such offence seven years. Therefore section 398 does
not create a substantive offence.

Other offences connected with dacoity:

Dacoity is the only offence which has been made punishable at four different stages
they are:
 Under Section 399-making preparation for commission of dacoit
 Under Section 402-assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity
 Under Section 400, and 401-belonging to a gang of thieves or dacoits

Making preparation to commit dacoity:

Section 399 makes preparation for committing dacoity an offence and punishment for such an
offence is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years along with the
fine. Usually the mere preparation for committing any offence is not punishable, but dacoity
is one of the exceptions to the general rule. This is so as preparation consists of devising or
arranging, the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. Dacoity has
been identified as an offence, so natural against the interest of the public that the legislature
has made a departure from the general rule and made preparation to commit dacoity an
offence, despite of the fact that the persons did not proceed beyond the stage of preparation.
The essential requirements under this section are:

 the accused made some preparations

 the preparations were for commission of dacoity.

Belonging to a gang of thieves or dacoits:

Sections 400 and 401 makes the act of belonging to a gang punishable with rigorous
imprisonment, for a term which may extend up to ten years along with fine. The essential
requirement is that the accused must belong to the gang of persons, associated for the purpose
of committing theft or robbery. That means there must be continuity and a more or less
continued association of the accused with the gang.

Assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity:

Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code states that the mere assembling of five or more persons
for the purpose of committing dacoity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment, which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The essential ingredients of this section
are:

 an assembly of five or more persons

 must assemble for committing dacoity

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION

Misappropriation means to take possession of property and put it to unauthorized or wrongful

use. It applies to instances of putting somebody else's property to one's own use.

Criminal misappropriation is a newer form of theft. Where theft is removal of property from
the possession of the owner, criminal misappropriation is the offence of taking a property on
finding or coming across but not from the possession of a person. Criminal misappropriation
is a non-cognizable offence. It takes place when a person comes across a property and takes it
innocently, and by a subsequent change of intention or from the knowledge of some new fact
with which the party was not previously acquainted and keeps it. This retaining of the
property is wrongful and fraudulent. The offence of dishonest misappropriation or conversion
is either temporary or permanent. The offence is completed by mental act of the person.

As was held in Keshov Ram's Case (1889) the accused was a servant of 'A' and was
entrusted with A's money for the purpose of purchasing grain at J. The accused left with the
money but went to H instead of J, without giving any information to A. Later he gave false
account. The accused was arrested at the instance of H with entire money in his possession.
The contention made in support of the accused was that he should not convicted for criminal
misappropriation as the whole money was found intact with him. It was held that the first
possession was lawful and the misappropriation consisted not in any actual expenditure of the
money, but in the mental act or intent to deprive the master of his property without any
visible trespass which was inferred from the conduct of the accused. Misappropriation means
to take possession of property, and putting it to unauthorized or wrongful use. It applies to
instances of putting somebody else property to once use for instance if A finds and picks up a
purse on the road it is a innocent act. The honest act of picking up the purse will change to
criminal misappropriation if it is not returned to the owner and instead A uses the purse and
its money for his own use. Here, the person comes into possession in some neutral or
innocent way.

In Velji Raghaviji patel vs The State of Maharashtra (1965) were certain amounts from
the business were released by the Managing Partner of a Partnership firm, but were used for
his own use, for which he was charged for Criminal misappropriation. The Court held that if
he as a owner of the property uses the property in whichever, and whatever ways with any
intention would not amount for misappropriation as he is the owner. A partner he becomes
the owner of assets, along with other partners and if he uses them for his own purposes he
may be civilly liable to other partners, but not for offence of criminal misappropriation.

Under Section 404 of Indian penal code if a person converts the property of deceased person
dishonestly at the time of his death and converts to his own property. Whereas such property
is vested with legally entitled person, then such a act of the person is made punishable with
imprisonment for a term extending up to 3 years, along with a fine and if such offender was
employed by the deceased as a clerk or servant then the imprisonment may extend up to 7
years. The offence has been considered as an aggravated form of offence, hence the enhanced
sentence.

The object of section is to extend protection of property of the deceased, especially in the
interregnum period, until the legal heir of the deceased comes into possession and takes over
the property. The offenders have been classified by the section as strangers who may take the
advantage of the death. The punishment for commission of such an offence is 3 years along
with fine. The next class of offenders are clerks and servants of the deceased for whom the
punishment is a severe - imprisonment extending up to 7 years.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

The offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under section 404 of Indian penal code
which is similar to the offence of embezzlement under English law. The main crux of the
offence of criminal breach of trust is dishonest misappropriation to another’s property as
defined under section 403 of Indian penal code. The only difference is that the accused is
entrusted with a property or with dominion control over the property. The essential
requirements of the section are:

 entrustment of property
 movable and immovable property
 dominion over property
 dishonest misappropriation

Property under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code includes both moveable, and
immoveable property. The word 'dominion' connotes control over the property. In respect
of partnership firms it was held in Velji Raghavji patel vs. state ofMaharashtra (1965) that
though every partner has dominion over property by virtue of being a partner, it is not
dominion which satisfies the requirement of Section 405, as there is no 'entrustment of
dominion' unless there is a special agreement between the partners making such
entrustment.

The employer's position has been explained under explanation (1) (2) of the section where an
employer of an establishment who deducts employee's contribution from the wages payable
to the employees State insurance fund, shall be deemed to be entrusted with the amount of the
contribution deducted and default in payment will amount to dishonest use of the amount and
hence, will constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust.

Punishment for criminal breach of trust is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine or with both. However the punishment for the aggravated form of criminal
breach of trust committed by carriers, wharfingers or warehouse-keepers that have been
entrusted to keep the property safe, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years along with fine.

The same applies to the clerk, or servant who commits Criminal breach of trust over the
property entrusted to him by the employer for safe keeping. The punishment for such an
offence is imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years along with fine under section
407 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant, agent:

The offence of criminal breach of trust committed by the public servant, or banker, merchant
or agent has been dealt under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment for
offence committed by the said people is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a period
extending up to ten years along with fine. The punishment is more stringent because of the
special status and the trust which a public servant enjoys in the eye of public as a
representative of the government or government owned enterprises. As was held in
Superintendent and Remembrance of legal Affairs vs. S. K. Roy (1974), where the
accused was a public servant serving as the Superintendent of Pakistan for a unit of
Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society in Calcutta. This was a unit of LIC. The accused
was not authorized to realize premiums directly in cash from policy holders, despite of which
he did premiums from some Pakistani policy holders and misappropriated the amounts after
making false entries in the registers. The court held that there was Criminal breach of trust
committed by the accused, as the entrustment has a nexus to the office held by the public
servant as a public servant.

CHEATING

SECTION 415

Hawkins defines cheating as, “deceitful practices, in defrauding or endeavouring to defraud

another of his own right by means of some artful device, contrary to the plain rule of common
honesty”.

Cheating= Deceiving + Inducing

• By fraudulently deceiving and inducing the person so deceived

a) To deliver any property, or

b) To consent to the retention of any property by any person

• By dishonestly inducing the person to deliver any property or to give consent to the
retention of any property

• By intentionally inducing the person deceived to do or to omit to do anything which he

would not have done, if he was not so deceived and such act of him caused or was likely to
cause damage, or harm in body, mind, reputation or property.

Section 420 is an aggravated form of cheating and provides enhanced punishment which may
extend to 7 years of imprisonment and fine.

Ingredients

• That the representation made by the accused was false,

• The accused knew that the representation was false at the very time when he made it,

• That the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the
person to whom it was made,

• That the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to
do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted.

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698

The appellant applied to Patna University for permission to appear at the 1954 M.A.
examination in English as a private candidate, representing that he was a graduate having
obtained his B.A. degree in 1951 and that he had been teaching in a school. In support of his
candidature, he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Headmaster of the
school and the Inspector of Schools. Thereupon, an admission card giving him permission to
appear in the M.A. examination was sent. Later, just before the commencement of the
examination it was discovered that the certificates were forged and that the accused had
neither obtained a B.A. degree nor was he a teacher. Held, by making the false statement
about his being a graduate and a teacher in the application submitted to the University, the
accused did deceive the University. His intention clearly was to make the University give

him permission to appear in the M.A. examination. The accused would have succeeded in the
commission of the offence of cheating if the admission card had not been withdrawn. Under
the circumstances, the accused was guilty of attempting to cheat under section 420 read with
section 511, IPC.

MISCHIEF

The definition of mischief is mentioned under Section 425 of IPC & the punishment is
prescribed under Section 426 of IPC. Further Section 427 to 440 lays down the specific
punishment prescribed for aggravated forms of mischief depending upon the nature & the
value of the property damage.

As per the Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) that
whenever anyone performs an act either having an intention to cause or is aware that his act
is likely to bring, some destruction or damage to any property, destroying or diminishing its
value and utility, hence, resulting in an undue loss or damage to the public or any person is
said to commit mischief.

Ingredients of Mischief

Essentially there are three key elements to establish Mischief as per the definition laid down
in section 425 of IPC which are as follows:

 Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea);

 The act resulting in destruction, damage or change in the property or situation thereof;
and (actus rea)
 The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.

Punishment for Mischief

The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which states that it attracts
imprisonment of a term which may extend up to three months, or with fine, or with both, as
the court may deem fit.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable,
and triable by any Magistrate.

In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh And Ors. v. the State Of U.P., it was stipulated that if
the accused has committed an act without any intent or knowledge that the act in question is
likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or the public at large, it will not fall
under the ambit of mischief as the element of “Mens rea” is absent. Similarly, if an act is
committed without free consent i.e.under some pressure or duress it will also not amount to
mischief.

In Arjun Singh v. The State (AIR 1958 Raj 347) it has been observed by this Court: ”In
order to establish the offence of mischief, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that
the accused must have an intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or
damage to the public or any person.”