Meaning and Ingredients related to Theft, Robbery and Dacoity, Criminal Breach of Trust, cheating, Kidnapping & Abduction for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Passage 1
Read the passage below and answer the following question.
Cheating is considered a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is done to gain profit or advantage from another person by using some deceitful means. The person who deceives another knows for the fact that it would place the other person in an unfair situation. Cheating as an offence can be made punishable under Section  of the . Scope of Section  Cheating is defined under Section  of the Indian Penal Code as whoever fraudulently or dishonestly deceives a person to induce that person to deliver a property to any person or to consent to retain any property. If a person intentionally induces a person to do or omit to do any act which he would not have done if he was not deceived to do so and the act has caused harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property, then the person who fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally induced the other person is said to cheat. Any dishonest concealment of facts that can deceive a person to do an act that he would not have done otherwise is also cheating within the meaning of this section. Essential Ingredients of Cheating requires · deception of any person. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or · intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Deceit– a tort arising from an untrue or false statement of facts which are made by a person, recklessly or knowingly, with an intention that it shall be acted upon by the other person, who would suffer damages as a result. 
Fraud – a false or untrue representation of the fact, that is made with the knowledge of its falsity or without the belief in its truth or a reckless statement that may or may not be true, with an intention to induce a person or individual to act independent of it with the result that the person acts on it and suffers damages and harm. In other words, it is a wrong act or criminal deception with an intention to result in financial or personal gain.
Question - 1 
 went to a moneylender, , for the loan.  intentionally pledges the gold article with  taking the loan.  knows that the article is not made of gold. After a few days,  leaves the village. Decide.

Read the passage below and answer the following questions.

Cheating is considered a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is done to gain profit or advantage from another person by using some deceitful means. The person who deceives another knows for the fact that it would place the other person in an unfair situation. Cheating as an offence can be made punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Scope of Section 415 Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code as whoever fraudulently or dishonestly deceives a person to induce that person to deliver a property to any person or to consent to retain any property. If a person intentionally induces a person to do or omit to do any act which he would not have done if he was not deceived to do so and the act has caused harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property, then the person who fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally induced the other person is said to cheat. Any dishonest concealment of facts that can deceive a person to do an act that he would not have done otherwise is also cheating within the meaning of this section. Essential Ingredients of Cheating requires · deception of any person. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or · intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Deceit– a tort arising from an untrue or false statement of facts which are made by a person, recklessly or knowingly, with an intention that it shall be acted upon by the other person, who would suffer damages as a result. 

Fraud – a false or untrue representation of the fact, that is made with the knowledge of its falsity or without the belief in its truth or a reckless statement that may or may not be true, with an intention to induce a person or individual to act independent of it with the result that the person acts on it and suffers damages and harm. In other words, it is a wrong act or criminal deception with an intention to result in financial or personal gain.

Question :- D went to a moneylender, Z, for the loan. D intentionally pledges the gold article with Z taking the loan. D knows that the article is not made of gold. After a few days, D leaves the village. Decide.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

In the case of M/S Halonex Limited, 59-A Noida vs State of U.P., it was held that “In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that the case of the applicants that no amount is due from their side to the complainant is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at this stage. It has been submitted that the term 'entrustment' as used in Section 405 IPC has been given a wider interpretation. It has been submitted that the goods returned by the complainant to the Company for replacement or for reimbursement would be deemed to have been entrusted to the Company and as the applicants 2 & 3 were handling its affair they become responsible. To buttress the said submission, the learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2003) 3 SCC 641, wherein it was observed that: "the term "entrustment" is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general signification all it imports is the handing over possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right at all." Attention was also drawn to an observation made in the judgment of the aforesaid case, where it was observed that: "to establish the 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”.

Question:

A, being amicable with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's nonappearance, and takes away a book without Z's express consent. Here, assuming A was under the feeling that he had Z's inferred agreement to take the book for study purpose, A has not committed any crime. Later on, A sells off the book and reports it as lost. Determine the liability of A.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

In the case of M/S Halonex Limited, 59-A Noida vs State of U.P., it was held that “In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that the case of the applicants that no amount is due from their side to the complainant is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at this stage. It has been submitted that the term 'entrustment' as used in Section 405 IPC has been given a wider interpretation. It has been submitted that the goods returned by the complainant to the Company for replacement or for reimbursement would be deemed to have been entrusted to the Company and as the applicants 2 & 3 were handling its affair they become responsible. To buttress the said submission, the learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2003) 3 SCC 641, wherein it was observed that: "the term "entrustment" is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general signification all it imports is the handing over possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right at all." Attention was also drawn to an observation made in the judgment of the aforesaid case, where it was observed that: "to establish the 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”.

Question:

Amit was in a crowded place where he saw a person drop his wallet with Rs10,000 in it. Amit picks that purse knowingly it belongs to another person. He uses that money for his own use rather than giving it back to its owner or informing in the police station.

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the question

Section 405 incorporated under the Indian Penal Code defines elaborately the offence of the criminal breach of trust. It states that in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it must be established that the accused was entrusted with the property or with the dominion or power over the property of another person. Accordingly, a relationship is created between the transferor and the transferee, where the transferor remains the legal owner of the property and the transferee is bestowed with the custody of such property. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment in case of a breach of trust, whereas Sections 407 to 409 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the cases of aggravated forms of criminal breach of trust. For instance, in case of breach of trust by carrier, wharfinger, i.e. a manager of a place where ships may be fastened by chain or anchor to load or unload the cargo, or warehouse-keeper, or by a clerk or servant, or by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent, etc., the punishment may extend up to seven years of imprisonment with or without fine.

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code requires doing something with respect to property that would indicate either misappropriation or conversion or disposal in contravention of any legal contract. A mere dispute of civil nature will not attract the provisions of the Sections of the criminal breach of trust.

Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code elaborates upon one of the serious forms of the criminal breach of trust and penalizes any person who is either a clerk or a servant and commits the offence of the criminal breach of trust. 

Qquestion

Offence of Criminal breach of Trust is committed against which kind of property?

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the question

Section 405 incorporated under the Indian Penal Code defines elaborately the offence of the criminal breach of trust. It states that in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it must be established that the accused was entrusted with the property or with the dominion or power over the property of another person. Accordingly, a relationship is created between the transferor and the transferee, where the transferor remains the legal owner of the property and the transferee is bestowed with the custody of such property. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment in case of a breach of trust, whereas Sections 407 to 409 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the cases of aggravated forms of criminal breach of trust. For instance, in case of breach of trust by carrier, wharfinger, i.e. a manager of a place where ships may be fastened by chain or anchor to load or unload the cargo, or warehouse-keeper, or by a clerk or servant, or by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent, etc., the punishment may extend up to seven years of imprisonment with or without fine.

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code requires doing something with respect to property that would indicate either misappropriation or conversion or disposal in contravention of any legal contract. A mere dispute of civil nature will not attract the provisions of the Sections of the criminal breach of trust.

Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code elaborates upon one of the serious forms of the criminal breach of trust and penalizes any person who is either a clerk or a servant and commits the offence of the criminal breach of trust. 

Qquestion

Which of the following essential is not required to be proved against any person who is alleged to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under IPC?

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Sections 359 to 369 of the Indian Penal Code have made kidnapping and abduction punishable with varying degrees of severity according to the nature and gravity of the offence. The underlying object of enacting these provisions is to secure the personal liberty of citizens, to give legal protection to the children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes and to preserve the rights of parents and guardians over their wards for custody or upbringing. The word ‘kidnapping’ has been derived from the word ‘kid’ meaning ‘child’ and ‘napping', 'to steal'. Thus, kidnapping literally means child stealing. And the word kidnapper was originally meant to signify one who stole children and others to provide servants and labourers for the American plantations. Kidnapping under the Code is not confined to child stealing. It has been given a wider connotation as meaning carrying away a human being against his or her consent or the consent of some person legally authorized to accord consent on behalf of such person. The word 'convey' literally means simply going together on a journey, but in popular parlance, it now means carrying a person to his destination. Thus, the offence would not be complete until the person actually reaches not only a foreign territory but to his destination as well. Mere conveying of a person from one place to another is not criminal. That Act becomes criminal if it is conveyed without his consent. A person may be conveyed as such by using force as by inducing him to give his consent by fraud and deception. Similarly, consent loses its essential elements if it is given under fear or duress, in which case it is submission and not consent.  Abduction in common language means the carrying away of a person by fraud or force. According to Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code, abduction takes place when a person by force compels or by any deceitful means induces another person to go from any place. Abduction, pure and simple, is not an offence. It is an auxiliary act not punishable in itself, but when it is accompanied by a certain intention to commit another offence, it per se becomes punishable as an offence. The expression 'deceitful', as used in this provision, is wide enough to include inducing a girl to leave her guardian's house on a pretext. It also implies the use of misrepresentation and fraud by acts or conduct.
Question
Ms. S, is a student of the second year B.Sc., an adult with a sound mind. The accused was her neighbour and they became friendly with each other. On October 1, Ms. S left her father's house and telephoned the accused to meet her in his car at a certain place. She went to that place and found the accused waiting in the car. The accused took her to certain places and then to the Marriage Registrar's office where they obtained a marriage certificate. Thereafter, both remained as husband and wife.
As a Court of competent jurisdiction, determine the criminal liability of the accused as per the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

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):  Where a person removes the property of any person with the intention of causing wrongful loss to that person and wrongful gain to himself, then he has committed the offence of theft.
Reasoning (R): The dishonest removal of a moveable property out of the custody of a person is an offence against possession and not against ownership.

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
From the following, determine the nature of property upon which the offence of theft may be committed under the Indian Penal Code.
(1) The subject of theft must be the corporeal property of every description.
(2) The theft of electricity is considered as theft of the moveable property covered under the Indian Penal Code.
(3) Severing of anything which is permanently fixed to anything which is attached to earth is said to be an offence of theft of moveable property.

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.