LAW OF CRIMES

PROJECT ON:
OFFENCE OF THEFT,
EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND
DACOITY.

SUBMITTED BY: NIDHI CHITKARA AND URVASHI BHATIA

TO: Ms. UPMA GAUTAM

ROLL NO: 03016503813

03916503813
CLASS :SEC A 2nd YEAR IV SEM

Theft - Section 378 of IPC

INTRODUCTION

In common usage, theft is the taking of another

person's property without that person's permission
or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful
owner of it. The word is also used as an informal
shorthand term for some crimes against property,
such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting,
robbery, shoplifting and fraud. In some jurisdictions,
theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;
in others, theft has replaced larceny.
According to S 378 of Indian Penal Code, whoever,
intending to take dishonestly any moveable
property out of the possession of any person
without that persons consent, moves that property
in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Punishment of theft- Section 379

For the offence of theft there is punishment of

imprisonment of either description which may
extend to 3 years, with fine, or both according to
the Indian Penal Code.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

Section 378 of IPC reads:

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any
moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that persons consent, moves that
property in order to such taking, is said to commit
theft.

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 affects

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.
Explanation 4
A person, who by any means causes an animal to
move, is said to move that animal, and to move
everything which, in consequence of the motion so
caused, is moved by that animal.

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.

LEADING CASE LAW

In a leading decision of KN Mehra v. State of
Rajasthan.1
1 AIR 1957 SC 369,(1957) Cr LJ 552 (SC)

FACTS

The alleged theft was of an aircraft, which

belonged to the government (Indian Air Force
Academy).

Two youngsters, Mehra and Phillips, were

cadets on training in the Indian Air Force at
Jodhpur. Phillips was discharged from the
Academy on 13 May 1952 for misconduct.

On 14 May 1952, he was due to leave Jodhpur

by train.

His friend Mehra was due for flight in a Dakota,

as part of his training along with one Om
Prakash, a flying cadet.

The authorised time to take off flight was

between 6 am and 6.30 am on the morning of
14th May.

ISSUES

Mehra and Phillips took off,

1.

not a Dakota but a Harvard T-22,

2.

before the prescribed time at 5 am

3.

without authorisation and

4.

without observing any of the

formalities, which were prerequisites for aircraft flight.

On the forenoon of the same day, they landed

at a place in Pakistan about 100 miles away
from the Indo-Pakistan border.

On 16 May 1952 at 7 am, both of them met the

Indian Commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi,
and informed him that they had lost their way
and force-landed in a field and that they had
left the plane there. They requested his help to
go back to Delhi. The Indian High
Commissioner arranged for both of them to be
sent back to Delhi in another plane.

While they were on their way to Delhi, the

plane stopped at Jodhpur and they were
arrested and prosecuted for the offence of
theft.

One of the main contentions of the accused was

that if they had the inclination to take the aircraft to
Pakistan, they would not have contacted the Indian
High Commissioner at Karachi later. But the
prosecution succeeded in proving that this

apparent innocent move did not necessarily

negative their intention at the time of taking off. It
may be that after reaching Pakistan only, the
impracticability of their scheme to get employment
in Pakistan dawned upon them and they gave it up.
It was enough to constitute the offence that they
had the dishonest intention at the commencement
of the journey. The fact that they took off Harvard T22 plane rather than the allowed Dakota, and left
India at 5 am instead of the scheduled time of 6
am, without waiting for Om Prakash, and that they
also refused to respond to the wireless messages
from Indian aerodrome authorities at 11 am,
showed that they had the dishonest intention to
take off a Harvard T-22 plane.

INGREDIENTS
The offence of theft under s 378 can be analysed and
hence the essential elements to constitute theft are as
follows.
1. It should be a movable property;
2. In the possession of anyone;
3. A dishonest intention to take it out of that persons
possession;

4. Without his consent and

5. A moving in order to such taking.

MOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 22 of IPC defines theft as including

corporeal property of every description except
land and things attached to the earth, or
permanently fastened to anything which is
attached to the earth

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.

As per the Explanations 1 and 2 attached to

Section 378 of IPC, things attached to the land
may become movable property by severance
from the earth, and that the act of severance
may of itself be theft.

In Suri Venkatappayya Sastri, Agent vs Madula

Venkanna2
The only question is whether the stones in this case
are "moveable property
It was held in the case that stones when quarried
and carried away are "things severed from the
earth" and are "moveable property" and as such
are capable of being the subject of theft. Before
they were quarried out they formed part of "the
earth," and as such they were not moveable
property, but as soon as they were quarried out
they were "severed from the earth" and became
"moveable property.
In the case of Bandrappa vs State By Gadigenur
Police3
It is very clear that as soon as petitioner has
severed the iron ore from the land in order to
transport the same, it is to be said that he has
committed a theft.
In the case of The Queen v. Tamma Ghantaya4, the
Court (Turner, C.J. and Kernan, J.) referring to salt
formed spontaneously in a swamp said " We cannot
2 (1904) 14 MLJ 155
3
4 I.L.R. 4 M. 228

distinguish this case from theft of wood in a

reserved forest, except that salt is actually a part of
the soil, while trees are not; yet things immoveable
become moveable by severance and this would
apply to severed parts of the soil, e.g., stone
quarried, minerals, iron or salt collected, as well as
timber which has grown, or edifices which have
been erected on the land."

A house cannot be the subject of theft, but

there may be theft of its materials.

Can Data Theft be covered under IPC?

Since Section 378 I.P.C., only refers to Movable

Property i.e. Corporeal Property, and Data by itself
is intangible, it is not covered under the definition
of "Theft. However, if Data is stored in a medium
(CD, Floppy etc.) and such medium is stolen, it
would be covered under the definition of Theft,
since the medium is a movable property. But, if
Data is transmitted electronically, i.e., in intangible
form, it would not specifically constitute theft under
the IPC.
Data, in its intangible form, can at best be put at
par with electricity
With regard to Electricity, The Supreme Court has
held in Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab,5 that
5 AIR 1956 SC 666.

electricity cannot be considered to be a movable

property and that s 378 by itself would not include
a theft of electricity. I t has also been held that
dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in
the Indian Electricity Act 1910, is not an offence
under the IPC, though it is an offence under s 39 of
the Electricity Act.

ANIMALS

Animals can become the subject of theft, for

they can be classified as movables.

In case of wild animals ,they are ferae naturae,

there can be no absolute property.

In case of Abandoned animals, they cannot

said to be in the possession of anyone

In a case, when a man buried the carcass of a

bullock suspecting it to have been poisoned and
another person dug it up and carried it away,it was
held that no theft was committed because the
property and property in it were abandoned.
The removal of animals grazing in open lands
where it had been left by the owner is theft. But
leading the animals to the pound is not theft.
However, if a person, the owner or a stranger,
removes cattle from pound where they are secured,

is the only movable without paying the levied fees,

he is guilty of theft as he deprives the poundkeeper of his legitimate fees.

HUMAN CORPSE-Sir James Stephen says that

this object known to him which is incapable of
being a property.

Human body whether living or dead (except bodies,

or portions thereof, or mummies, preserved in
museums and scientific institutions) is not movable
property.

FISH

Fish in running waters, such as rivers, and

canals and in the lakes and seas are ferae
naturae and cannot be the subject of theft.

So also fish in open irrigation tanks, or tanks

not enclosed on all sides, where even the right
of fishing has been let out to a licensee are
considered as ferae naturae and not subject of
theft.

In the case of Govindha Majhi v. Arobinda Kar,6 the

accused has caught fish from the portion of a tidal
and navigable river licensed out to the
complainant, he was held not guilty of theft based
on the principles well stated in Krishna Reddy v
Muniappa Reddy7:
As long as the water flows in and out of the pond,
thereby enabling the fishes to enter and leave it,
the fishes are free and in a state of nature; and so
no more belong to the owner but when once the
water has fallen to such a level that fishes cannot
leave it, then they are trapped and consequently in
the possession of the owner of the pond. That being
so, any person who takes fish from that pond
without the owners consent with the intention to
cause him loss necessarily commits theft.
Similarly, in Queen Empress v. Shaik Adam8, it was
held that the tank from which the fish were taken,
was apparently an enclosed tank belonging to the
municipality, the fish were restrained of their
natural liberty and liable to be taken at any time
according to the pleasure of the owner and were,
therefore, subjects of theft. If the fish were unable
to escape from the tank, they were practically in
the power and dominance of the prosecutor.
6 AIR 1950 Ori 106.
7 AIR 1943 Mad 34.
8 (1886) ILR 10 Bom 193

In Bairagi Rout v Brahmananda Das9, it was held

that when during the rainy season fish escapes
from one plot to another demarcated by ridges of
small height and are merged under the water, it
cannot be said that fish is the subject matter of
theft.

In Chandi Kumar Das v Abanidhar Roy10,

It was held that the Fish in their free state are
regarded as ferae naturae, but they are said to be
in the possession of a person who has possession of
any expanse of water such as a tank, where they
live but from where they cannot escape. Fishes are
also regarded as being in the possession of a
person who owns an exclusive right to catch them
in a particular spot known as a fishery but only
within that spot. There can thus be theft of fish
from a tank which belongs to another and is in his
possession, if the offender catches them without
the consent of the owner and without any bona fide
claim of right.
Water
It was held in Sheikh Arif11 case that the water
running freely from a river through a channel made

9 (1970) Cr LJ 638 (Ori).

10 AIR 1965 SC 585
11 (1908) ILR 35 Cal 437.

and maintained by a person is not a subject matter

of theft.
In Re Chockalingam Pillai12 case, it was held that
running water in irrigation canals is the subject of
theft. The distinguishing character in making water as
a subject matter of theft is possession.
In Mahadeo Prasad case13, it was held that water when
conveyed in pipes is reduced into possession of the person
and thereby it becomes the subject matter of theft.

Cooking gas or water passing through pipeline

can be a subject of theft, when the accused
fixed a pipe in the main line just before the
meter, to avoid payment.

Idols from the temples, paintings from

museums and other public or private places
are subject of theft.

OUT OF POSSESSION

The movable property which is subject of theft

must be in the possession of the prosecutor.

The word possession is not defined in the IPC,

though its nature in one aspect is indicated in
Section 27, wherein it is said that .When
property is in the possession of a persons wife,

12 (1913) Cr LJ 131 (Mad).

13 (1923) ILR 45 All 680.

clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is

in that persons possession within the meaning
of this code.

Explanation:

Salmond describes possession, in fact, as a

relationship between a person and a thing the
test for determining whether a person is in
possession of anything is whether he is in
general control of it.

Possession exists in one whenever he has

physical control, whether rightful or wrongful,
over a corporeal thing, possession is entirely
distinct from property and either may exist
without the other.

Thus, when an article is stolen though the thief

has possession, the owner retains the property.

A movable thing is said to be in the possession

of a person when he is so situated with respect
to it that he has the power to deal with it as
owner to the exclusion of all other persons, and
when the circumstances are such that he may
be presumed to intend to do so in case of
need.

Possession may be de facto or de jure. The

former is mere custody. A servant has only
mere custody of the articles which belongs to

his master. For example, A, the master of a

house gives a dinner party; the plate and other
things on the table are in his possession,
though from time to time they are in the
custody of his guests or servants.

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

In certain circumstances, 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. This is also called de jure
possession or possession in law.
For example, whenever he has entrusted the care
of a thing to his servant, the physical control of the
servant does not amount to possession as against
his master, but merely to custody and as against
other persons, it may amount to possession.

JOINT POSSESSION

Where there are several joint owners in joint

possession, and any one of them, dishonestly takes
exclusive possession, he would be guilty of theft.14
A co-owner of movable property with another,
whose share is defined, can be guilty of theft, if he
removes the joint property without consent of the
14 Virankutty v Chiyamu (1884) ILR 7 Mad 55.

co-owner.15 Similarly, if a coparcener dishonestly

lakes the separate property of another coparcener,
he will be guilty of theft.16

Mere custody will not amount to

possession

This principle is expressly recognised in s 27, IPC.

So, where a lady who wanted a railway ticket,
handed the money to a stranger, who was near to
the window of the ticket office, that he might
procure a ticket for her, and he ran away with the
money, this was held to be theft, as she never
parted with the dominion over the money and
merely used his hand in place of her own. 17

Temporary deprivation or Dispossession is

also theft

In Pyare Lal Bhargawa v. State of Rajasthan,18 the

accused was a superintendent in a government
office. At the instance of somebody, 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
15 Ramsharangat Singh v State of Bihar (1966) Cr LJ 856.
16 Sita Ram Rai (1880) ILR 3 All 181.
17 R v Thompson 32 LJ (MC) 50.
18 AIR 1963 SC 1094.

person to facilitate the removal of some papers and

the insertion of some. Thereafter, the file was
replaced. The question before the Supreme Court
was whether the act amounted to theft. 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 to
return it to him. It would satisfy the definition if he
took any movable property out of the possession of
another person, though he intended to return it
later. When the file was unlawfully taken away from
the department, he deprived the department of the
possession of the file and caused wrongful loss to
the department. So, it was held that it amounted to
an offence under s 378, IPC. The Supreme Court
held that the transfer of movable property without
consent of the person in possession need not be
permanent or for a considerable length of time nor
is it necessary that the property should be found in
possession of the accused. Even a transient
transfer of possession is sufficient to meet the
requisites of theft.

DISHONEST INTENTION

Intention is the gist of the offence.

It is the intention of the taker at the time when

he removes the article that determined
whether the act is theft or not.

Section 24 of IPC says 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.

The intention to take dishonestly exists when

the taker intends to cause wrongful gain to
one person and wrongful loss to another.
Wrongful gain or wrongful loss must be
involved in dishonesty.19

Section 23 of IPC reads as follows:

Wrongful gain:
Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of
property to which the person gaining is not legally
entitled.
Wrongful loss:
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 keep out

19 KN Mehra v State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552(SC).

of any property, as well as when such person is

wrongfully deprived of property.
In the case of KN Mehra v State of Rajasthan20, It
was held that a person can be said to have
dishonest intention if in the taking the property it is
his intention to cause gain by unlawful means of
the property to which the person so losing is legally
entitled.
It was also clear that the gain or loss contemplated
need not be a total acquisition or a total deprivation
but if it is temporary retention by the person
wrongfully gaining or a temporary keeping out of
property from the person legally entitled.

When dishonest intention is totally absent,

there is no theft.

Taking another mans property, believing,

under a mistake of fact and in ignorance of
law, that he has the right to take, therefore,
does not amount to theft.

If the act done is not animo-furandi, it will not

amount to theft.
Meaning of Animo Furandi

20 AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552(SC).

- The intention to steal.

In HJ Ramson V Triloki Nath21, it was held that if a

company under the agreement of hire- purchase
has reserved the right to seize it in the event of
default in payment of installment and default is
made, then, the company is not entitled to retake
its possession by removing it from the hands of
purchasers servant who had no authority either
express or implied to give any consent. If the
company or its agents do so they are guilty of theft.
The legal possession of the lorry was vested in the
purchaser and the company was not entitled to
recover possession of the lorry without the consent
of the purchaser.
However, In K.A. Malthi v. Kona Bibbikutty, 22 The
Supreme Court held that the possession of a
vehicle taken by the accused financer in pursuance
of the hire-purchase agreement amounts to theft as
such resumption of possession is tainted with the
requisite dishonest intention and mens rea.

However, in Charanjit Singh Chadha v Sudhir Mehra,23 the

21 (1942) 17 Luck 663.
22 [(1996) 7 SCC 212],
23 AIR 2001 SC 3721, (2001) Cr LJ 4255 (SC).

supreme court did not hold the financier who took

back the vehicle for default in payements in
accordance with the hire purchase agreement
guilty of theft as he lacked the element of dishonest
intention.

WITHOUT CONSENT

The taking must be without the consent of the

person in possession.

There can be no theft where the owner actually

consents to or authorises the taking.

Thus, where a debtor gives up property to his

creditor and subsequently discovering that the
debt was time-barred, charged the latter with
theft, the same was held unsustainable in
Musumat Piari Oulaiya.24 The consent may be
express or implied, may be given by the person
in possession or by any person having for that
authority either express or implied.

24 (1904) 1 ALJ 508.

MOVING OR TAKING

There must be moving of the property with an

intention to take it.

As the essence of the offence consists in the

fraudulent taking, that taking must have
commenced.
For instance, where a man lifted up and set
on end a package of linen, which was lying in
a wagon and cut the wrapper to get at its
contents, but was apprehended before he had
taken anything out; and where a pick-pocket
got a purse out of the owners pocket, but was
unable to carry it away, because it was
attached to his pocket by a string, the judges
held that there had been no theft for a
carrying away, in order to constitute a felony
[there] must be a removal of the goods from
the place where they were; and the felon
must, for the instant at least, have the entire
and absolute possession of them25

However in the case of a post office letter

carrier, the taking out of the bag in which the
letters were carried during delivery, and

25 Charrys case East PC 556

placing it in his own pocket was deemed

sufficient, the jury having found that he put
the letter in his own pocket intending to steal
it.26

So it was held in the Madras decision

Venkataswami,27
where a letter-sorter instead of handing a
letter out for delivery in the usual course,
secreted it on his person, that he might give it
to the delivery peon himself with a view to
sharing the postage payable by the
addressee; the high court ruled that by this
act he took the letter out of the possession of
the post office authorities without their
consent for a fraudulent purpose and
therefore committed theft.

CONCLUSION
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an
26 R V Ponyton L and C 247.
27 (1890) ILR 14 Mad 229.

unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's

property which must be accompanied by a mens
rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently
deprive the owner or the person with rightful
possession of that property or its use. These
ingredients are necessary to commit the offence of
theft under section 378 of IPC. If any of these
ingredients is not found, then it would not come
under the purview of sec 378 of IPC and the
accused cannot be punished under sec 379 of IPC.

Extortion

INTRODUCTION
The offence of extortion is intermediary between
the offence of theft and robbery. Extortion becomes
robbery, if the offender at the time of committing
the offence puts the person in fear and commits
the extortion by causing fear of instant death, hurt
or wrongful restraint. However, in robbery, the

property can be removed by force without the

person delivering the property.
Section 384 deals with Punishment for extortion. It says,
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.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
383. Extortion reads as
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.

INGREDIENTS
The following are the essential ingredients of the
offence of extortion:
1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury,

2. The purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the

person put in fear,
3. To deliver property or valuable security.

Principles:1. Injury here includes only such harm as may be

caused illegally to a person's mind or body or
reputation or property.
From the above description of extortion as per section
383 of the Indian Penal Code,
it can be inferred that the offence of extortion must
have following essential ingredients
A. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury
- One of the necessary ingredients of the offence of
extortion is that the victim must be induced to
deliver to any person any property or valuable
security etc. under of injury. The fear must be of
such nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of
the person on whom it operates, and takes away
from his acts the element of free voluntary action
which alone constitutes consent. Here the wide
interpretation of injury must be kept in mind in
respect to section 44 which is as follows
Section 44 : The word injury denotes any harm
whatever illegally caused to any person, in body,
mind, reputation or property.

The above section therefore ascribes to the

description and nature of injury being
against property, injury whether physical or mental or
against the goodwill of a person which may cause
distress. Whether a person has in fact been put in any
injury is a matter which courts must decide. Since the
fear of injury is an essential ingredient to constitute
the offence of extortion, it is necessary to imply
that the nature and extent of such injury under
similar circumstances keeping in consideration the
facts of the case would be found in an ordinary
reasonable prudent man. Therefore the Courts have
remarked that, though fear is not necessarily
confined to an apprehension of bodily injury, it must be
in reason as, in reason and common experience, is likely
to induce a person to part with his property against
his will, and to put him as it were under a temporary
suspension of the power of exercising it through
influence of the terror impressed; in which case, fear
implies as well in sound reason in legal
construction, the place of force, or an actual taking by
violence or assault upon the person.

Illustration
A threatens to publish defamatory libel concerning Z,
unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him
money. A has committed extortion.

In State v. Basavegowda, the husband, the accused took

his wife to a forest and obtained her ornaments
under threats to kill to kill her. The ornaments were
subsequently recovered from him. Since the
essential ingredient constituting the offence of
extortion, putting a person in fear of injury i.e. the
threat to kill was present in the above mentioned
case therefore the accused was held guilty under the
offence of extortion under s.383 of the Indian Penal
Code.

B. Threat of Criminal Accusation

It is also to be noted that the threat of a criminal
charge, whether true or false would also amount to
the fear of injury. Herein the guilt or the innocence
of the party threatened would be immaterial.
Therefore threatening to expose a clergyman who
had criminal intercourse with a woman in a house of
ill-fame in his own church and village, to his own bishop,
and arch-bishop and also publish his shame in the
newspapers was held to be such a threat wherein
an ordinary prudent man could not be expected to
resist such threat. The injury in the case was an
injury to the reputation thus falling under the scope
and meaning of injury as per s.44. This constitute
the offence of extortion and the clergyman was
held guilty.

Similarly it was decided in an another key English

case, where the prisoner was charged with robbery
for having induced the prosecutor to part with
money by a threat that the prisoner would take him
before the magistrate and accuse him of having
attempted an unnatural offence. The
prisoner induced fear and therefore was guilty of
extortion.
In case of Purshrottam Jethanand v.State of Kutch,28 the accused
was a police jamadar working in the local in the
local investigation branch of the State of Kutch. He
had visited a particular taluk , and checked
passports of a number of persons who had returned
from Africa. In the course of the check he collected
the passport of one Ananda Ratna in a village and
demanded a sum of Rs. 800 for its return.
Accordingly the said amount was paid and the
passport returned. The accused was convicted
under s.384 IPC, it was contented before the
Supreme Court, no fear of injury was held out by the
accused to support the conviction under s.384 of IPC.
However the Supreme Court held that from the
evidence, it was found that the accused in the
course of his check of 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 of the passport on that threat.
Even assuming that the passports were genuine,
wrongfully with holding the same was equally a fear
28 AIR 1954 SC 700, (1954) Cr LJ 1751 (SC).

of injury. Also in the mentioned case, it is eminent

that there was a fear of injury in the form of threat
of criminal accusation. Hence the offence was
covered under s.384 of IPC.
C. Dishonestly induces a person to deliver any

property
Another chief element or ingredient of extortion is
that the inducement must be dishonest. Delivery
by person put in fear is essential in order to constitute
the
offence of extortion. The offence of extortion is not
complete until there is actual delivery of the
possession of the property of the person put in the
fear and there is wrongful loss. The delivery
of property is as distinct from taking away property
is of essence of the matter in extortion. Where there
is no delivery of property, but the person put in fear
of injury offers no rsistance to carrying of the
property, the offence is of robbery instead
of extortion. Then again immovable objects may
also become the subject matter of extortion in as
much as the offence of extortion consists in inducing a
person put in fear to deliver to deliver valuable
security or anything signed or sealed which can be
converted into valuable security.

Illustration
- A, by putting Z in fear of injury, dishonestly
induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper
and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to
A. Here as the paper so signed maybe converted into
a valuable security. A has committed extortion. Where
the accused honestly believed, complainant had
taken money belonging to him (the accused), an
attempt to take back that amount cannot be said to
be with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the
victim.
To Any Person
It is not necessary that a threat should be should
be used and property received, by one and same
individual. It may be a matter of arrangement
between several persons that the threats should be
used by some and the property received by others.
Hence all people involved in such arrangement
would be guilty of the commission of the offence
of extortion.
In the case, RS Nayak v. AR Antulay29, the
respondent was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra
at the relevant time. During this period, he formed
29 AIR 1986 SC 2045, (1986) Cr LJ 1922 (SC).

seven trusts, one of which was Indira Gandhi

Pratibha Prathisthan (IGPP). The chief minister
demanded that unless the sugar do-operatives who
had placed a charter of demands before the
Government of Maharashtra, made contributions to
the IGPP, their demands pending before the
government would not be acceded to. The entire
official machinery, particularly of the Sugar
Directorate, was utilised to pressurise the
sugar federation for extracting the contributions. As
a result of such extortion, several sugar factories
had to yield and pay up. It was contented by the
respondent that in order that s.383 should apply,
the respondent should out threat to do or to omit to
what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a
man does is to promise to do a thing which he is
not legally bound to do, then such act would not
amount to extortion. The Supreme Court accepted
the contention and merely held that
merely because the respondent was the chief
minister at that time and pressure was brought on
sugar co-operatives to pay up donations as a measure
of reciprocating for consideration of their demands
pending before the government, it cannot be said
that the ingredients of extortion was made out .Since
the element of consent in voluntary act is
necessary, it should be an act which the victim is
legally bound to do in the future or an illegal omission

In Labhshankar vs. State of Saurashtra, and in Vena

Ram vs. State of Raj, it was held that charge under
Section 384 IPC, is not sustainable if the property is
not delivered by the person extorted.
The thing delivered under Section 383 may be any
property or valuable security, or anything signed or
sealed with may be converted into a valuable
security. Valuable security is defined in Section 30
of the Code thus: The words valuable security
denote a document which is, or purports to be, a
document whereby any legal right is created,
extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or
released, or whereby any person acknowledges
that he lies under legal liabilities, or has not a
certain legal right. In Biram Lal vs. State, it was held
that in order to complete the act of extortion the
person who was put in fear, must have been
induced to deliver the property. If the act of
inducement caused by the wrong doer should bring
forth its result at least by the victim consenting to
deliver property even if actual delivery does not
take place due to any fortuitous circumstances
which would constitute extortion, but if it fails to
produce the requisite effect, the act would remain
only at the stage of attempt to commit extortion. In
the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is
held to be not made out for want of delivery of the
property at least, the offence of attempt to commit
extortion is clearly made out

For example, A writes his name on the back of a bill

of exchange and the effect of this endorsement is
to transfer the right to the bill any person who may
become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is
a valuable security.
The expression anything signed or sealed denotes
that even incomplete deeds may be the subject of
extortion. If a minor boy is beaten and forced to
execute a pro note, the person using such force
would be liable under Section 283, but forcible
taking of thumb impression on a piece of paper
which can be converted into a valuable security
does not amount to extortion but to an offence
under Section 352 of the Code.
But incomplete deeds may be the subject of
extortion. For instance, A signs his name to a
promissory note in which date and amount etc. are
not filled up and delivers it to B, the offence of
extortion is committed because promissory note
can be completed and used as valuable security.

BURDEN OF PROOF
Thus what is necessary for constituting an offence
of extortion is that the prosecution must prove that
on account of being put into fear of injury the
victim was voluntarily delivering any particular
property to the man putting him into fear. If there
was no delivery of any property, then the most

important ingredient constituting an offence of

extortion was not available.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND

EXTORTION
Section 383 states: 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 deliver to any person any property or
valuable security or anything signed or sealed
which may be converted into a valuable security,
commits extortion.
As To Consent:
In extortion, consent is obtained by putting the
person in possession of property in fear of property
in fear of injury to himself or any other person.
In theft, the offenders intention is to take the
property without the owners consent. There is no
element of force in theft.
Property:
In Extortion , both moveable and immoveable
property may be the subject of the offence. In theft
it is limited only to moveable property.
Element Of Force:
There is element of force in the offence of extortion
as the property is obtained by putting a person in

fear of injury to that person or any other.

There is no element of force in theft.
Scope:
Extortion is wider in scope as it coved any kind of
property, valuable security or anything that may be
converted into valuable security.
Theft covers only the cases of moveable property.
Taking Of Property:
In extortion, threat may be by one person and the
property may be received by another person.
In theft, property must be move by person in order
to such taking.
Effect:
In extortion, the property is delivered.
In theft, there is dishonest removal of property

Robbery
Section 390 of IPC talks about Robbery. It explains
that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
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.

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, or 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.

Explanation:
The offender is said to be present if he is
sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant
Wrongful restraint.
Illustrations:
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Zs
money and jewels from Zs clothes, without Zs
consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order

to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily

caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore
committed robbery.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and
demands Zs 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 Zs child on the high road. A
takes the child, and threatens to fling 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 is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is
not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant
death of his child.

A. Meaning:
Robbery means a felonious taking from the person
of another or in his presence or against his will, by
violence or putting him in fear. Robbery is an
aggravated form of theft or extortion. If there is no
theft or no extortion, there is no robbery.
B. In all robbery there is either theft or
extortion:
The framers of the Indian Penal Code observed:
There can be no case of robbery which does not
fall within the definition either of theft or extortion;
but in a practice it will perpetually be a matter of
doubt whether a particular act of robbery was a
theft or extortion.
A large proportion of robberies will be half theft,
half extortion. A seizes Z, threatens to murder him,
unless he delivers all his property, and begins to
pull of Z ornaments. Z in terror begs A will take all
he has, and spare his life, assists in taking of his
ornaments, and delivers them to A. Here, such

ornaments as A took without Zs consent is taken

by theft.
Those which Z delivered from fear of death or
acquired by extortion. It is by no means improbable
that Zs right arm bracelet may have been obtained
by theft and left arm bracelet by extortion; that the
rupees in Zs girdle may have been obtained by
theft and those in his turban by extortion.
Probable in nine-tenths of the robberies which are
committed something like this actually takes place,
and it is probable a few minutes later neither the
robber nor the person robbed would be able to
recollect in what proportions theft and extortion
were mixed in the crime; nor is it at all necessary
for the ends of justice that this should be
ascertained.
For though, in general, the consent of a suffer is a
circumstance which vary materially modifies the
character of an offence, and which ought,
therefore, to be made known to the Courts, yet the
consent which a person gives to the taking of this
property by a ruffian who holds a pistol to his
breast is a circumstance altogether immaterial.

C. When theft is robbery: Before theft can

amount to robbery,
Firstly:
The offender must have voluntarily caused or
attempted 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,
Secondly:
This must be in order to the committing of theft, or
in committing of theft, or in carrying away or
attempting to carry away property obtained by the
theft,

Thirdly:
The offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to
cause to any person hurt, etc., for that end, that is
in order to committing theft or for carrying away or

attempting to carry away property obtained by the

theft,
Fourthly:
The offender must voluntarily attempt one or any of
the above acts.
D. When extortion is robbery:
Similar to the above point, extortion becomes
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, or of instant hurt, or
of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to
some other, and, by so putting in fear induces the
person so put in fear then and there to deliver up
the thing or property extorted.
E. Punishment:
Sec. 392 imposes punishment for robbery. It lies
down that whoever commits robbery shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be

liable to fine; and if the robbery be committed on
the high-way between the sun-set and the sun-rise,
the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen
years.
F. Attempt to commit robbery:
Sec. 393 says that whoever attempts to commit
robbery, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
G. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing
robbery:
According to Sec. 394, if the offender while
committing robbery voluntarily causes hurt to the
complainant, such offender shall be punished with
imprisonment with life or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and also fine.

In Omprakash vs. State,30 the accused committed a

high-way robbery. They looted the passengers of
the bus. The trial Court imposed punishment for
life. On appeal High Court upheld it.

30 (1978 Cr LJ 797 All.)

DACOITY
Every dacoity is robbery. There is only slight
difference between robbery and dacoity. Dacoity is
nothing but robbery committed by five or more
persons.
Section 391 of Indian penal code says, when five or
more person conjointly commit or attempt to
commit a robbery or where the whole number of
persons conjointly committing or attempting to
commit a robbery and persons present and aiding
such commission or attempt amount to five or
more every person so committing attempting or
aiding is said to commit dacoity.
It is punishable under section 395 of Indian penal
code. It says, whoever commits dacoity shall be
punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBBERY AND

DACOITY.

For an offence of dacoity, minimum number of

the miscreants required is five. The term

dacoity is defined in section 391 IPC which

clearly postulates that when five or more
person conjointly commit or attempt to commit
a robbery or where the whole number of
person conjointly committing or attempting to
commit a robbery and persons present and
aiding such commission or attempt amount to
five or more every person so committing
attempting or aiding Is said to commit dacoity.

The offence of robbery is defined in section

390 IPC and as is clear from a perusal of the
said section even a theft is robbery if during its
commission the offender voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt
or wrongful restrain or fear of instant death or
of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain.

Whereas robbery is punishable under section

392 IPC dacoity is punishable under se 395 of
IPC.

PUNISHMENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF

DACOITY
Section 395 of the Indian penal code provides for
punishment for dacoity. It says, whoever commits
dacoity shall be punished with [imprisonmentfor

life] or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which

may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to
fine.
It comes into play only when the prosecution makes
out an offence under section 390 and the number
of assailants reaches to the statutory minimum.
The maximum punishment provided under this
section is life imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years. Fine also be imposed. Dacoity
is considered a very grave and serious crime and
hence courts hence held that in cases of dacoity
deterrent sentences is called for. In awarding
punishment for an offence under this section two
things are to be considered:

1)

Having regard to the gravity of the offence

committed the punishment that each individual
deserves

2) On the facts and circumstances of a particular

case whether an unusually heavy sentence is
required to protect the interests of the public at
large by acting as a deterrent to others.

Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (Decoity with

murder), deals with an aggravated form of dacoity.
It says if any one of five or more persons who are
conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in so
committing dacoity, every one of those persons
shall be punished with death or[ imprisonment for
life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
In order to bring home the offence of dacoity with
murder under section 396, it is not necessary to
prove that the murder was committed by any
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 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 a 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.

Dacoity with murder depends on facts and

circumstances of the case:
In Shyam Bihari v state of Uttar Pradesh31
Facts of the case-The accused had entered the
house with the intention of committing robbery.
However, their attempt was foiled because of the
hue and cry raised by the residents. All the
residents of the village and the neighbouring village
arrived on the scene. The accused and his
companions without collecting their bootyran away
from the house. They were chased by the residents
and when they were crossing the ditch, one of the
dacoits was caught by a villager. Thereupon,
another dacoit fired a pistol, which hit the villager
killing him instantly.
The Supreme Court held that the transaction of the
dacoity had endedthe moment the dacoits started
fleeing, because this was a case where the dacoits
escaped without the booty. A separate transaction
took place when the accused shot dead the villager
while crossing the ditch. It was, therefore, held that
it was not a case of dacoity with murder under S
396. The accused was convicted under s 302, IPC.
Section 397 deals with robbery or dacoity, with
attempt to cause death or grievous hurt- This
section says that if, at the time of committing
robbery or dacoity, the offender used any deadly
31 AIR 1957 SC 320, (1957) Cr LJ416 (SC)

weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or

attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any
person, the imprisonment with which such offender
shall be punished shall be less than seven years.

Section 398 deals with attempt to commit robbery

or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon- the
section says that if, at the time of attempting to
commit robbery and decoity, the offender is armed
with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with
which such offender shall be punished shall not be
less than seven years.
Both sections 397 and section 398 do not create
substantive offence, but merely prescribe a
minimum sentence for the offence of robbery and
dacoity mentioned in these sections. Under section
397 of IPC, if at the time of committing robbery or
dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapons or
causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or
grievous hurt, he shall be liable to suffer a
minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
The essentials of this section are as follow-

a)

An offence of robbery or dacoity must have

been committed.

b)

The offender should have taken part in the said

offence.

c)

The offender should have used a deadly

weapons or cased grievous hurt or attempted
to cause death or grievous hurt to any person
at the time of committing a dacoity.

In Phool Kumar v Delhi Administration

32

the accused had entered a petrol pump. The first

accused was armed with a knife while the second
accused had small gun in his hand. The first
accused asked the employees of the petrol pump to
hand over the keys. To terrorize the employees the
second accused fired three shots in the air. One
shot struck the window and two hit the ground.
Thereafter they ransacked the office and decamped
with the money, the question that arose for
consideration was whether the first accused that
32 AIR 1975 SC 905, (1975) Cr LJ 778 (SC).

was carrying a knife with him but did not use it for
committing any over act would be covered under se
397. The Supreme Court held that in section 397
the words used were the offender uses whereas in
section 398 the expression is armed with deadly
weapons. Both the section provides minimum
sentences of seven years. The court held that first
accused was carrying a knife, which was a deadly
weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to
frighten or terrorise them. Any other overt act, such
as, brandishing of the knife or causing grievous
hurt with it, was not necessary to bring the offender
under this section.
Section 397 covers the cases of completed offence
of robbery or dacoity with the use of deadly
weapons. Section 398 covers the attempt to
commit robbery or dacoity armed with any deadly
weapon. Under this section, any offender who is
found guilty of attempting to commit robbery or
dacoity, and is also found to be armed with deadly
weapons, then the minimum sentence to be
awarded to such offender under s 398 is seven
years.