Offences against property (TRESPASS, BREAKING

MODULE- 6
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 17 (IPC)/ CHAPTER 17 (BNS)

THEFT
S. 303 OF BNS/ S. 378 OF IPC

S.24 IPC “Dishonestly”. — Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful
gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
Section 22:- “Movable property”
The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except
land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
Section 23:- “Wrongful gain”
Wrongful Gain – is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
Wrongful loss – is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Gaining wrongfully. Losing wrongfully – A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains
wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when
such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of
property.

Possession
Possession can be –
Possession in fact- de facto possession- actual Possession and
Possession in Law- de jure possession- possession in law
Constructive possession- When a person who has no actual physical control over a thing
will be deemed to have possession in the eye of law, which is called constructive
possession or de jure possession.
Section 27:- Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant
When property is in the possession of a person‘s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is
in that person‘s possession within the meaning of this Code.
Explanations
1.A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk, or servant, is a
clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.
Joint- Possession- When there are several owners in joint possession and anyone of them
dishonestly takes exclusive possession without the consent of the other owners, he will be
guilty of theft.

INGREDIENTS OF S. 303
• dishonest intention to take
• movable property
• out of possession of a person
• without that person’s consent
• moves that property in order to such taking

K N MEHRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1957 SC 369
FACTS:
• K. N. Mehra and M. Z. Phillips were cadets who were doing training in the Indian Air Force Academy situated in
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. On 13th May, 1952, Philips was discharged from the Academy on the grounds of misconduct, and
was to leave Jodhpur the next day. On 14th May, Mehra was due for a flight in a Dakota (a type of plane) as a part of
his training between 6 am to 6:30 am.
• On that morning, K. N. Mehra and Phillips took off with Harvard H.T. 822 and not with Dakota at about 5 am, without
any authorization and without fulfilling any formalities, which are essential for an aircraft-flight. In the afternoon, they
landed in the fields of Pakistan. On 16th May, both of them contacted Mr. J. C. Kapoor, military advisor to the Indian
High Commissioner in Pakistan and told him that they lost their way and were forced to land in the fields of Karachi.
• On 17th May, 1952, the plane in which they were travelling back to Delhi halted at Jodhpur and both of them were
arrested.
ISSUES:
• Whether this offence comes within the category of Section 378 of IPC, 1860?

JUDGEMENT:
• The court analyzed the ingredients of the offence of theft and observed:
“Commission of theft, therefore, consists in (1) moving a movable property of a person out of his possession without
his consent, (2) the moving being in order to the taking of the property with a dishonest intention. Thus (1) the
absence of the person's consent at the time of moving, and (2) the presence of dishonest intention in so taking and at
the time, are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft”
• On the meaning of dishonest intention, the court referred to S. 23 of IPC and observed:
“..a person can be 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 person so gaining is not legally entitled or to cause loss, by wrongful
means, of the property to which a person so losing is legally entitled.. the gain or loss contemplated need not be a
total acquisition or total deprivation but it is enough if it is a temporary retention of property..”
• On the question of implied consent, the court said-
“..the taking out of the aircraft in the present case had no relation to any such training. It was in an aircraft
different from that which was intended for the appellant's training course for the day. It was taken out without the
authority of the Flight Commander and, before the appointed time, in the company of a person like Phillips who,
having been discharged, could not be allowed to fly in the aircraft. The flight was persisted in, in spite of signals to
return back when the unauthorised nature of the flight was discovered. It is impossible to imply consent in such a

PYARE LAL BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1963 SC 1094
FACTS:
• The accused was a superintendent in a government Chief Engineer’s office.
• At the instance of another person, he got a file from the secretariat through the clerk and took the file to his house for a
day and made it available to a person (his friend) to facilitate the removal and insertion of some papers. He then put the
file back in the place the next day.
• He was charged with theft under IPC.
ISSUES:
Whether the act of taking something out of the possession of a person and returning it later would constitute as ‘theft’
under Section 379 of IPC?
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court held that to commit theft, one need not take movable property permanently out of the possession of
another, with the intention not return it to him. It would satisfy the definition if he took any movable property out f the
possession of another person, though he intended to return it later. When the file was unlawfully taken away from the

EXTORTION
S. 308 OF BNS/ S. 383-389 OF IPC

• intention
• put any person in fear
• of injury to himself or another person
• dishonestly induces
• to deliver to any person
• any property/ valuable security

STATE OF KARNATAKA V. BASAVEGOWDA, 1997 CR LJ 4386 (KANT HC)
FACTS:
Basavegowda (husband) about 10 days after his marriage took his wife (Bhagyamma) to one forest under the pretext of
going for the wedding of a friend and he threatened to kill her unless she parted with all her ornaments. Bhagyamma,
finding no other option, removed all her jewellery valued at around Rs. 11000 and handed the same over to the accused,
who wrapped the same in a handkerchief and put it in his pocket.
ISSUES:
Whether the offence of the accused is punishable under section 384 for extortion?
JUDGEMENT:
The High Court observed the fact that under normal situations, a wife may even entrust her ornaments to the husband for
safe custody and such an arrangement could never lead to the inference that the husband was disentitled to retain the wife's
ornaments and that it is a guilty circumstance against him. Particularly in criminal cases, such facts must be looked at
strictly in relation to the special situation that prevails. The wife states that the ornaments were in her custody and that the
accused under threat, took the ornaments away from her. If so, then his possession becomes clearly unlawful. The extortion

Purshottam Jethanand v. State of Kutch AIR 1954 SC 700
Facts-
• The accused was a police jamadar working in the local investigation branch of the state of Kutch
• He had visited a particular Taluk, and checked the passports of a number of persons who had
returned from Africa as it was suspected that some of the passports were not genuine.
• In the course of the checking, he collected the passport of one Ananda Ratna in a village and
demanded Rs 800 for its return. Accordingly the said person paid the amount and took back the
passport. The accused was convicted u/ S.384 for extortion.
• It was contended before the SC that there was no fear of injury that was held our by the accused
for a conviction for extortion.
Judgement of the SC-
The SC held that from the evidence. It was found that the accused in the course of checking the
passports had suspicion that some of the passports were not genuine. There was an implied threat
for prosecution in respect of the same and withholding the passport on that threat. Even assuming
that the passports were genuine, wrongfully withholding the same was equally a fear of injury.
Hence the offence is made out u.s384 IP for extortion.

ROBBERY
S. 309 OF BNS/ S. 390, 392-394 OF IPC

Sec. 378 Theft Sec. 383 Extortion
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.
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”.
Section 390: Robbery
“In all robbery there is either theft or extortion”
- Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion.
It is essential that all the elements that constitute either theft or extortion must be present in
robbery.

Sec. 390 When theft is robbery
Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the
committing of the 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 of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint.
Illustration (a)

When theft is robbery
Theft is robbery in following circumstances:
(1) When someone voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person:
(a) Death or hurt or wrongful restraint,
(b) Fear of instant death or instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.
(2) The above acts must be done for any of the following ends :-
(a) in order to the committing of theft, or
(b) in committing theft or
(c) in carrying away, or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
- The use of violence will not convert the offence of theft into robbery, unless the
violence be committed for one of the ends specified in the section.
Sec. 39. Voluntarily—A person is said to cause an
effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means
whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which,
at the time of employing those means, he knew or

When theft is robbery
Harish Chandra vs. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 1430
The victim boarded a train at the railway station. The accused and the co-accused
along with some other persons entered the same compartment. When the train
reached another railway station, some of the passengers started getting down from
the compartment and there was a great rush.
At that time, the accused forcibly took away the wristwatch of the victim and when
the victim raised an alarm, the co-accused slapped him and his other companion hit
him with a stick. Both the accused jumped out of the compartment.
Both the accused were charged for robbery.
It was argued on behalf of the defence that since the slapping of the victim took place
after the 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 stating that the co-accused slapped the
victim to enable the accused to carry away the stolen property. Under the
circumstances, it would clearly fall within the provisions of sec. 390, because as per

When extortion is
robbery
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, of 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.

When extortion is robbery
Extortion is robbery if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(1) when a person commits extortion by putting another person in fear of
instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that
person or to some other person; and
(2) such a person by so putting another in fear, induces the person so put in
fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted; and
(3) the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of
the person put in fear.
Illustrations (b), (c) and (d) to this section are the examples of those cases
where extortion becomes robbery.

When extortion is robbery
Illustrations:
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z, in
consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by
putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the
extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens
to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence,
delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be
in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore
committed robbery on Z.
(d) A obtains property from Z by saying “Your child is in the hands of my
gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”. This

• five or more persons
• conjointly
• commit or attempt to commit a robbery
• committing, attempting or aiding together

Dacoity
Punishable at different stages : Dacoity is perhaps the only offence which the
legislature has made punishable at four stages.
(1) When five or more persons assemble for the purpose of committing a
dacoity, each of them is punishable under Sec. 402 merely on the ground
of joining the assembly. [Intention]
(2) Another stage is that of preparation and if any one makes preparation to
commit a dacoity, he is punishable under Sec. 399. [Preparation]
(3) The stage of attempting to commit and [Attempt]
(4) The stage of actual commission of robbery. [Commission]
Stage (3) and stage (4) have been treated alike, and come within the definition.
In other words, attempt to commit dacoity is also dacoity.

RAM RATAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AIR 2022 SC 518
• FACTS:
• The appellant along with two others, entered the hut of the complainant in the night while he was asleep. One of
them was armed with a gun, which he pointed at the chest of the complainant and asked for money. When he
said he does not have any, his phone and motorbike keys was snatched. The accused forced him to sit on the
motorcycle along with them. Later they compelled the complainant to get down from the motorcycle and the
motorcycle was taken away.
• ISSUES:
• Whether the offence of the accused is punishable under section 397 ( Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt)?
• JUDGEMENT:
• The use of the weapon to constitute the offence does not require that the ‘offender’ should actually fire from
the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or

RAM RATAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AIR 2022 SC 518
JUDGEMENT:
• If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’
had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon
alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC.
• In the instant case, the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant nor was such an
allegation raised and proved against the appellant. Hence, benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of
Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor alone as being guilty, will be available to the appellant if there is no
specific allegation against him.
• In the instant case, since the facts and the evidence does not indicate that the appellant could be construed as
an ‘offender’ who used the firearm, the charge alleged against him and held to be proved by the trial Court as
also the High Court under Section 397 IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981 cannot be sustained.
However, the appellant having participated in the offence of committing robbery which stands established with
sufficient evidence, the conviction handed down by the trial court and upheld by the High Court under Section

Dacoity
Lashkar, (1921) 2 Lah. 275
The house of a person was raided by a gang of five dacoits, one of whom was
armed with a gun. The dacoits ransacked the house and made good their
escape with their booty. A number of villagers had assembled outside the
house and in fighting their way through the crowd, one of the dacoits shot one
man dead and inflicted fatal wounds upon another who died shortly
afterwards.
It was held that murder committed by dacoits while carrying away the stolen
property was "murder committed in the commission of dacoity" and every
offender was therefore liable for the murder committed by one of them u/s
396

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
S. 314 OF BNS

• dishonestly
• misappropriates or converts to his own use
• movable property

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST -S. 316 OF BNS

Illustrations
(a)A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects
according to the will, and appropriate them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(b)A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on
payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(c)A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all
sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to
A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the direction and employs the money in his own business.
A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(d)But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold
shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying
Company’s paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of
that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.
(e)A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or
implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly
appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(f)A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the
property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
S. 316 OF BNS

• being entrusted with property
• dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use; or
• dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law/ contract; or
• willfully suffers any other person so to do

Difference Between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust
1. Possession: In Criminal Misappropriation, the property comes into the
possession of the offender in some natural manner or by some casualty, but in
Criminal Breach of Trust, the property comes into the possession of the offender
due to the entrustment by the owner of the accused.
2. Relationship: In Criminal Misappropriation, there is no contractual relationship
between the offender and owner of the property, but in Criminal Breach of
Trust, there is a contractual relationship between the offender and owner
regarding the property.
3. Nature of the property: In Criminal Misappropriation, the subject matter i.e.
the property is always movable in nature, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the
property may be movable or immovable in nature.

JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI V. STATE OF BOMBAY
AIR 1960 SC 889
FACTS:
• The appellants (a textile company) accepted the tender invited by the Textile Commissioner for
dyeing Pugree Cloth. However, only a few yards were successfully dyed, since the company had to
cancel the contract due to financial crisis and impending insolvency.
• When the Textile Commissioner was unable to recover the undelivered cloth, they charged the
appellant with criminal breach of trust.
• Trial Court convicted the appellants, and the HC upheld the conviction. Appeal preferred to SC.
ISSUES:
Whether the offence of the accused is punishable under section 409?

JAIKRISHNADAS MANOHARDAS DESAI V. STATE OF BOMBAY
AIR 1960 SC 889
JUDGEMENT:
• To establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of
conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which
he has dominion.
• The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not
ordinarily be a matter of direct proof.
• Entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved,
may in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or
conversion.
• Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal breach of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on
his failure to account for the property entrusted to him, but where he is unable to account or renders an
explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent
may readily be made.

Punishments
(2) Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating
relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any
part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations
(a)
A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly
induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
(b)
A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article
was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for
the article. A cheats.
(c)
A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article intentionally deceives Z into believing that the
article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the
article. A cheats.
(d)
A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by
which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e)
A, by pledging as diamond articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z,
and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

Illustrations
(f)
A Intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him
and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g)
A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo
plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money
upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to
deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not
cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
(h)
A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z,
which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
(i)
A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to
the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and
conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

Ingredients of Cheating
In the definition of cheating there are set forth two separate classes of act which the person
deceived may be induced to do
(a) The accused deceived some person
(b) By deception he induced that person
(c) The above inducement was fraudulent and
dishonest.
(d) The person so induced delivered some
property to
(e) or consented to the retention of some
property by any person.
For the First Part For the Second Part
(a) The accused deceived some person.
(b) The accused thereby induced him.
(c) Such inducement was intentional
(d) The person so induced did or omitted to do
something.
(e) Such act or omission caused or was likely
to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or
property.

Cheating
Deceiving any person
- The element of deception has been held to be the first stage of establishing the offence of
cheating.
- Generally, deceiving is to lead into error by causing a person to believe what is false or to
disbelieve what is true, and such deception may be by words or by conduct.
- It is not sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made but it is further
necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was
made in order to deceive the complainant.
Inducement
- Committing something fraudulently or dishonestly is also not sufficient. The effect of the
fraudulent or dishonest act must be such that it induces the person deceived to deliver
property or do something (in the form of an act or omission).
- Dishonest intention should be present at the time of making the promise; inducement must
have been made out in the early part of the transaction.

Cheating
- Mens rea is an important part of the offence of cheating.
- Mere puffing or exaggerating things in market sector will not be called as cheating.
- Example: the fact that the party did not honour the promises of the contract will not bring
criminal liability but only civil liability, unless it can be shown that at the time the alleged
false representation was made or the inducement offered, the accused had no intention to
honour the promises.
- Situation:
- The accused promised marriage to the girl and to her parents and thereafter maintained
sexual intimacy with her for over a year, confessed to the village panchayat of that fact and
pregnancy, but went away to marry another. Is it cheating?
- The offence of cheating was not made out. It required proof that at the time of the promise he
had the fraudulent intention of not performing.

Sec. 416 Cheating by personation
A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some
other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or
representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other
person really is.
Explanation.—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a
real or imaginary person.
Illustrations
(a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A
cheats by personation.
(b) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by
personation.
Sec. 419 Punishment for cheating by personation—
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.

MAHADEO PRASAD V STATE OF WEST BENGAL AIR 1954 SC 724
FACTS:
The appellant, Mahadeo Prasad, agreed to purchase 25 tin ingots from the complainant. These 25 ingots were to
be delivered by the complainant at the appellant’s warehouse. The complainant sent his jamadar to deliver the
tin ingots to the appellant. The appellant accepted delivery of the ingots but did not pay the price to the
jamadar. The claimant, who was persuaded to part with these 25 tin ingots by the appellant’s offer to pay cash
on delivery, filed a complaint u/s 420 of IPC. Conviction and affirmation by HC. Appeal to SC.
ISSUES:
Whether the appellant had committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC?
JUDGEMENT:
The High Court rightly observed that if the appellant had agreed to pay cash against delivery and had intended
to do so that he did not pay did not transform the transaction into one of cheating.
However, if he had no intention of paying but simply stated that he would in order to persuade the complainant

MAHADEO PRASAD V STATE OF WEST BENGAL AIR 1954 SC 724
JUDGEMENT:
No question of the appellant miscalculating his willingness to pay the cash against delivery arises. He was well
aware of his obligations, the funds he would get from third parties, and the payments he would be required
to make.
When he took delivery of the 25 tin ingots, the appellant had no intention of paying but simply agreed to pay cash
against delivery in order to persuade the complainant to part with the goods.
Based on the above views, the apex court found the appellant guilty of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
When a person is convicted of cheating, it is essential to establish that the said person had the intention to cheat.
Here, the guilty intention was proven, and the appellant was found guilty.

SHRI BHAGWAN S.S.V.V. MAHARAJ V. STATE OF A.P.
AIR 1999 SC 2332
FACTS:
The appellant claimed to have occult powers and attracted many devotees. He portrayed he had divine
healing forces and could heal chronic diseases through his touches. The complainant, Venkatakrishna
Reddy, asked him for help in healing his 15-year-old daughter, who was born a dumb child. He asked for
Rs. 1 lac as consideration. The complainant paid Rs. 5000/-, as well as an additional Rs. 1,000/- for
incidental expenses. He awaited the improvement of his dumb child. A further amount of Rs. 516/- was
taken for performing of a yagna. However, none of this resulted in any change in his daughter’s ability to
speak. He was charged u/s 420.
ISSUES:
Whether the appellant had committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC?

SHRI BHAGWAN S.S.V.V. MAHARAJ V. STATE OF A.P.
AIR 1999 SC 2332
JUDGEMENT:
• If anyone prays to God for the healing of the ill, there cannot be any element of fraud. However, if he represents
to another that he possesses divine powers and either directly or indirectly leads the other individual to believe
that he possesses such divine powers; he is engaging in inducement, as described in Section 415 of the IPC.
• Anyone who responds to such inducement under it and gives the inducer money or any other item and does not
receive the desired result is a victim of the fraudulent representation. In such a case, the court may conclude that
the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC has been committed.
• The Supreme Court held the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence and that the appellant
had committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
• The appeal was dismissed by the court.
• This judgement paved the way for protecting people from being deceived by fraudsters and relief for victims
of fraud and cheating.

Illustrations
(a)A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has
committed mischief.
(b)A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful
loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(c)A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss
to Z. A has committed mischief.
(d)A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to
Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt,
and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.
(e)A, having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing
damage to the under-writers. A has committed mischief.
(f)A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry
on the ship. A has committed mischief.
(g)A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z.
A has committed mischief.
(h)A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to
cause damage to Z’s crop. A has committed mischief.

• intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or
damage to-
• public or
• any person
• Causing the destruction of some property or
• Any change in it or its situation
• Such change leading to –
• destruction or diminishing of value or
• utility or

Cases
Ouseph v. State of Kerala 1981 CrLJ 1362 (Ker)- The accused person who knew that blocking
the canal through which the complainant had a right to take water to his own land, wrongful
loss would be caused to the complainant, was held to commit mischief.
Arjun Gouda v. State if Orissa AIR 1969 Ori 18-
The accused caused damage to the standing crops grown by the complainant on givt land
where the accused had the right to possess such land and cultivate. However, it was held that
in damaging the crops with the intention and knowledge that he would be causing wrongful
loss or damage to the complainant constituted the offence of mischief. The fact that the
accused had right over the land was held not to make him entitled to commit the unlawful act
of forcibly destroying the crops of the complainant.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS
S. 329 OF BNS

• enters a property
• in the possession of another
• unlawfully remains in a property
• intention to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy
the possessor

Offences against property (TRESPASS, BREAKING

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Offences against property (TRESPASS, BREAKING

Similar to Offences against property (TRESPASS, BREAKING (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Offences against property (TRESPASS, BREAKING