![]() Human corpseĭealing with a human corpse in IPC can be considered to be a special case. Thus, theft can be said to have been committed if fish from a tank which is in the possession of its holder, is caught by the offender without the consent of the owner. Fishes are also regarded as being in the possession of a person who owns an exclusive right to catch them in a fishery, but only within that spot. A qualified property in such animals might be acquired by taking or taming them or while they are on one’s estate), but they are said to be in the possession of that person who has possession of any area full of water like a tank. Animal (roaming freely) is not the subject of absolute ownership. Hence animals under movable property’s definition are capable of theft.įish in their free state are regarded as ferae naturae (a Latin word meaning, of a wild nature. The complainant has the right to file an F.I.R. The duty officer of the police station is responsible for making all the necessary entries. It should be immediately filed as an F.I.R, a copy of which should be duly signed, stamped and dated, along with the time and should be handed to the complainant. When a personĪpproaches the police station with a complaint regarding the theft of an animal (pet), the complainant must give a detailed description of the lost animal and if possible, along with the photograph. Section 379 of IPC as mentioned earlier, quotes punishment for theft as imprisonment for a term up to three years, or fine, or both.Īs in any other theft case, the procedure here remains the same. Hence if A, being Z’s servant is entrusted by Z with the care of his dog takes and sells the dog to some other party, without Z’s consent. Any property, which is taken away from the owner without the consent of the owner, amounts to theft. any animal within the possession of the owner is considered to be the property of the owner. The section itself explains the matter related to animals.Īny animal which is a pet, i.e. While mentioning above about the movable property in section 378, it also includes ‘animals’ in its definition. ![]() ![]() Moveable property is defined in Section 22 of the IPC. It must not be a static one (immovable property). The subject matter of theft must be moveable property. In other words, as per law, one can’t steal no matter what. In the name of justification to theft, if a man in extreme want of food or clothing steals either to relieve his present necessities, the law allows no such excuse to be considered.There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it’s taking.It should be taken without the consent of that person.It should be taken out of the possession of another person.Dishonest intention to take the property.Theft has the following defining ingredients which must be proved in a given case, namely: It lays down the punishment for theft as either imprisonment for a term (which may extend to three years), or with fine, or both. Section 379 of the IPC, penalizes ‘theft’. Thus, such taking cannot amount to theft. However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when anything is taken under a claim of right, provided that claim is fair, good and bona fide, the thing so taken, cannot be dishonest. Thus, it can also be concluded from the above situation that a person can be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, B commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |