Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with theft. It states that 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.
Theft is a criminal offense in India and is punishable under the IPC. The punishment for theft varies depending on the value of the property stolen and the nature of the offense. For example, if the value of the property stolen is less than one hundred rupees, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term of up to three months, or a fine, or both. If the value of the property stolen is more than one hundred rupees, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
The definition of theft under section 378 of the IPC is wide and includes not only the taking of property but also the moving of property with the intention to take it dishonestly. This means that even if the accused does not actually take the property, but merely moves it with the intention of taking it, he or she can still be held liable for theft.
There are several defenses available to a person accused of theft under section 378 of the IPC. One such defense is that the accused had the consent of the owner of the property to take or move the property. Another defense is that the accused had a good faith belief that he or she was entitled to take or move the property.
In conclusion, section 378 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offense of theft and provides for punishment for those who commit this offense. It is important to note that the definition of theft under this section is wide and includes not only the taking of property but also the moving of property with the intention to take it dishonestly. Those accused of theft may be able to defend themselves by showing that they had the consent of the owner of the property or that they had a good faith belief that they were entitled to take or move the property.
IPC Section 378
Other succeeding provisions contain more severe punishment for theft under aggravating circumstances. A has committed theft. Shanker, 2000 Cr LJ 266 Raj. Explanation 5 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. Theft under the IPC The crime of theft has been defined under Section 378 of the Act. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z's wife is authorised to give away alms.
They requested his help to go back to Delhi. Intention is the gist of offence theft. Any part of the earth whether it be stones, or clay or sand or any other component when severed from the earth is moveable property and is capable of being the subject of theft. A by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property. But the High Court did not liable Vithal as there was no wrongful gain and dishonest intention.
Section 378 of IPC: Definition of Theft with explanation and illustrations
Possession of Property If a property belongs to no one there cannot be theft that is res nullius things belonging to no one. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft. The offence of theft is punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to 3 years, with fine, or both according to the Indian Penal Code. The consent may be express or implied and may be given either of the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose express or implied authority. Same with, if a forest inspector who is the servant of the government takes wood in his possession and a dishonest removal of such woods without payment of the necessary fees will be constituted as theft too. Movable property The subject matter of theft must be moveable property. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure.
She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. Explanations of Section 378: Explanation 1. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. What Prosecution Should Prove? The consent given in the state of drunkenness and intoxication also consent given by a minor or person of unsound mind is of no avail and not a valid consent. The duty officer of the police station is responsible for making all the necessary entries. He and overseer and others were accused of theft of the debris formed. Sadly, aging horribly impacts their s3xual success, making them genuinely more sensitive and all the more exposed.
Here the ring is in Z's possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft. Court held it as theft as there was dishonest intention. Thus, it can also be concluded from the above situation that a person can be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another. The offence of theft, though cognizable and non-bailable, is compoundable where the accused and the victim can enter into a compromise to drop charges against the accused. A by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft. When a person approaches the police station with a complaint regarding the theft of an animal pet , the complainant must give a detailed description of the lost animal and if possible, along with the photograph. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft. In a case a boy belonging to a middle class family was sentenced to two years imprisonment with fine of Rs. Section 379 of IPC as mentioned earlier, quotes punishment for theft as imprisonment for a term up to three years, or fine, or both. But all the police were sleeping and did not pay heed to him. As indicated by the authority site, it utilizes eight fixings to accelerate the metabolic rate; accordingly, the body sheds pounds easily.
In the case, KN Mehra V State of Rajasthan, the accused took the Indian Airforce plane without authorization for a temporary purpose. The object of this provision is to provide greater security to properties in dwelling premises. Cattle entered that plot. Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure. It is important that he must have physical control over it, his possession may be rightful or wrongful.
Taking need not be permanent It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or that the accused should have derived any profit. Rajkrishna, 1873 20 WR Cr 80, case the Court held that the property moved by theft must be in the possession of the prosecutor. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z's implied consent to use Z's book. Z carries it to his shop. If the thing is severed from the earth and is moved without the consent of the possessor may be a theft.
A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. The authorised time for the flight to take off was between 6 am and 6. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft. This whoever can be any person including the person who is the owner of a particular thing or a property. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.