Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Read the following passage and answer the question Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of theft, meaning the dishonest removal of movable property out o

Read the following passage and answer the question
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of theft, meaning the dishonest removal of movable property out of the possession of any person without his consent. An act does not amount to the offence of theft under the Code unless there is not only no legal right but no legal appearance or colour of a legal right. By the expression ‘colour of legal right’ is meant not a false pretense but a fair pretense, not a complete absence of claim but a bona fide claim, however weak. In India, under the Hindu law, a husband and a wife can be liable for theft against each other. For instance, the husband is liable for the theft, if he takes away the stridhan property of his wife, which is her exclusive property as per various judgments of the Court. Intention is the gist of the offence. The taking will not amount to theft unless the intention with which it is taken is dishonest. In the judgment of Queen Express v Sri ChurunChungo, I (1895) ILR 22 Cal 1017, if a creditor takes a moveable property out of a debtor’s possession without his consent, with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt, this constitutes the offence of theft under the Penal Code. Where a partner in a business did not know that he was endorsing a cheque and believed that he was merely signing a piece of paper which he gave to the accused, even though the property for which the cheque was endorsed did not pass to the accused by reason of endorsement, but remained with the complainant, the accused was held guilty of dishonestly appropriating the property. It cannot be laid down as a general principle of law that a partner can in no circumstances commit theft of the partnership property.
Question
Identify the correct option for the following two statements of Assertion (A) and Reasoning (R).
 Assertion (A):   Taking out a property from the custody of a person does not amount to theft of such property under the Indian Penal Code.
Reasoning (R): Taking out a property with an intention of causing losses to another with or without causing gains to oneself amounts to the offence of theft.

 

Option: 1

Both (A) and (R) are correct; and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

 


Option: 2

Both (A) and (R) are correct; but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

 


Option: 3

 (A) is correct, but (R) is incorrect

 


Option: 4

(A) is incorrect, but (R) is correct

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

For the purpose of constituting the offence of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, the term ‘possession’ must be distinguished from the term ‘custody’. A person is said to be in possession of a thing when he can deal with it as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another, as in the case of a servant holding the property for his master. However, the same may not be meant when the person is in custody of a moveable property. To constitute theft, the property must be in the possession of someone and then removed from his possession. Furthermore, when a person only causes losses to another but does not gain anything himself, then he is said to have committed the offence of mischief, which is different from theft. Therefore, the first statement is correct, while the second statement is incorrect.

 

Posted by

Nehul

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Admit Card (OUT) Live: NLU CLAT hall ticket at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; how to download
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 admit card out at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; exam pattern, timings
anam-khan

IIULER Goa to admit students through CLAT; joins NLU consortium

Latest Question