Theft, Robbery and Extortion

Submitted by
Vishwajeet Singh

Division- Regular, Roll No-61-Class B.A.LL. B(Hons)of

Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia.
In

November, 2018

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sadiya
Assistant professor
faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “Theft, Robbery and Extortion” submitted to the Faculty of Law, Jamia
Millia Islamia for Law of Crimes I as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of Dr. Sadiya Ma’am. The Research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has
been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Vishwajeet Singh Raghuvanshi
Date: 7/11/2018
 Index

Acknowledgement 4

Introduction 5

Theft- Ingredients of Theft 6-9

Extortion- Ingredients of Extortion 9-10

Robbery 10-12

Conclusion 13

Bibliography- Web reference 14

Cases
Books
 Acknowledgement

In this assignment I have dealt with the topic Theft, Extortion, Robbery. What are the
ingredients of Theft, Extortion and Robbery with the help of case laws. I would like to
express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Sadiya who gave me the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic Theft, Robbery and Extortion, which
also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am
really thankful to them. I am also thankful to the authors of books which I have referred and
indeed they provided me of great details and helped me to grasp the concept.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.
Introduction- Theft comes under the purview of offences against property which extends from
section 378 to section 462. Theft has been dealt under section 378 to 382. Theft is an offence
in which movable property of a person is taken away without his consent. Theft has been
defined in Section 378 of IPC. Simultaneously the punishment for the commitment of act of
theft has also been defined in Section 379 of IPC. 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. While in case of extortion 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 valuable security commits,
“Extortion”.
While in case of Robbery there is two situations, first one is where theft is robbery while the
second one is when extortion 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. 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.
Theft -Theft is defined under section 378 of Indian penal code as 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 of such taking, is said to commit theft.1
 Since the word theft is in itself a very wide term thus there are various explanation
regarding what may amount to theft and they are as following.
 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
 A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
 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.
 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.
 Th 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.2

These five explanations have covered almost every aspect which can amount to theft as in case
of first explanation the situation can be fit to land where there are trees, usually they are
considered as immovable property but only as long as they are attached to the earth if someone
cut it then it would be amount to theft as it became a movable item. But standing timber and
grass would not come under this purview they are regarded as movable property. Even in case
of moving animal would amount to theft but the main ingredient for theft is dishonest intention,
if there is no dishonest intention then it would not amount to theft. Another concept regarding
theft is wrongful gain and wrongful loss.in a case where a person dishonestly took someone’s
watch, there is wrongful gain for him and wrongful loss to other whose watch has been stolen.
Offence of theft is only possible when the object is movable property. In case any person causes
an animal to move in a certain direction would amount to theft if the person has dishonest
intention of taking that animal away from the possession of the real owner and theft would be
commit as soon as the person made the animal to change his/her direction.

1
Sec 378 Indian penal code
2
Criminal law PSA Pillai
Ingredients of theft-
a) Dishonestly;
b) Appropriation;
c) Of property which is capable of being stolen, belonging to another;
d) With intention to deprive permanently.3

The essential ingredients of the offence of theft as embodied in section 378 IPC, is explained
by the supreme court in K.N. Mehra v State of Rajasthan.4
This case was regarding theft of an aircraft which belonged to the government of India. In
which two person, Mehra and Phillips were cadets on training in the India Air force at jodhpur.
Philips 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 a flight in a Dakota, as a
part of 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 14 may. Mehra and Philips took off
not a Dakota but a Harvard T-22, before the prescribed time at 5.00 am without authorisation
and without observing any of the formalities, which were pre-requisites for an 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 the 16th may 1952 at 7 am, both of them met the Indian high
commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi, and informed him that they had lost the way and forced
landed in a field and they had left the plane there. It is in the evidence of one J.C. Kapoor who
was military adviser to the India High commissioner in Pakistan, Karachi that Mehra and
Philips contacted him in person they requested his help to go back to Delhi. The Indian
commissioner arranged for both of them to send 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.5
In this case it was enough to constitute the offence of theft as there was dishonest intention at
the commencement of their journey. The fact that they took the Harvard T-22 plane rather than
Dakota, and left India at 5 am instead of the scheduled time 6 am without waiting waiting for
om Prakash and that they also refused to respond to the wireless messages from Indian

3
Criminal law cases and materials K.D. Gaur (page 774 para 2)
4
AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552 (SC)
5
https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult2014.aspx
aerodrome authorities at 11 am, showed that they had dishonest intention to take off Harvard
T-22 plane.
In this case wrongful gain might be absent but all other main ingredients are present such as
taking away the object without the consent of owner or authority. Accused went beyond their
authority to act in a manner in which they were not authorised. Thus, it was held to be an
offence of theft.
Obtaining property by deception is also an offence which comes under this section. Obtaining
property by deception is charged where a person dishonestly engages in a deception and as a
result obtains ownership or control of property belonging to another person. Like use of stolen
credit cards to purchase items or withdraw funds from an ATM. Though there are certain
requirement which needs to be followed.
1. There must be a deception
2. The deception must be deliberate or reckless
3. There must be property belonging to another’s
4. The defendant must obtain the property
5. The obtaining must be by deception
6. The obtaining must be dishonest, and be accompanied by an intention to deprive the
owner permanently.6

In DPP v Ray7 The House of Lords held that the defendant had exercised a deception by
remaining seated in the restaurant having decided not to pay. His remaining in this position
created the implied and continuing representation that he was an honest customer who intended
to pay the bill, thus inducing the waiters to leave the dining area unattended, giving him the
opportunity to run off without paying. Though I have discussed in the ingredients of theft that
intention to deprive permanently is one of the main parts to commit the offence of theft. But it
is not necessary that the taking should be permanent or with an intention to appropriate the
thing taken.8
There are also situations when act is done to save something without malice motive and
possession was changed from one person to another person so question was aroused that would

6
Chapter 34(page no 772) obtaining by deception (text book of criminal law Glanville Williams)
7
1974 Ac 370
8
Mehra K N AIR 1957 SC 369
it also amount to theft as there might not be dishonest intention of accused. This concept was
discussed in Jagannath Misra9 case.
In this case Hindus of a locality apprehended that x, a Mohamedan, who owned a calf, was
going to sacrifice that calf and an agreement was come to by which x consented that the calf
might be tied up in Y’s house, which was close by, but z a Hindu who arrived on the scene
subsequently carried away the calf without the consent of x or y to prevent all chances of the
calf being sacrificed and z was convicted was theft. It was held that calf though it was tied up
in y’s house, was still in the possession of x and z removed it and z’s removal of the calf was
“dishonest” though his motive was only to save it from being killed, and that the act of z amount
to theft.
Wrongful gain is also not necessary to constitute the offence of theft. It matters not whether
the intention of the thief was or was not to derive a profit from his crime. It will suffice if it
causes wrongful loss to the owner. In a case it has been held that when a person commits
mischief, he only causes loss to another but does not gain himself.10 In theft however
wrongdoer makes dishonest gain at the expense of victim.

Extortion -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”11

Illustrations-
a) A threatens to B that he will kill B’s child if B does not transfer the property. B
transfer the property to A in order to save his child. A has committed extortion
b) In any case where a person threatens to publish a defamatory statement against
someone in order to get some money. This will be a case of extortion.

Ingredients- the following are the ingredients of this section-

1. Intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to himself or to another.
2. Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security.

9
AIR 1929 Pat 429: (1929) 30 Cri LJ 546(Pat).
10
Abdul Qadir 1985 Cri LJ 1736(Pat)
11
S.383 Indian Penal Code
These are the two ingredients which are essential for determining whether the offence of
extortion has been committed or not. The fear of injury must be of such a nature and extent as
to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates. In a case where a prosecutor while
returning home met a woman on the way to whom he spoke, whereupon he was accosted by a
policeman on duty who threatened to prosecute him for having spoken to a prostitute on the
street for which prosecutor made himself liable to pay a fine of 1 pound. The constable however
proposed to drop the matter if he was paid a hush money of 5 Sh. Which prosecutor paid him.
The constable was held liable for this offence.12 Essence of this offence is dishonest inducement
and obtaining delivery of property in consequences of such inducement. Therefore, an intention
to cause wrongful loss or gain is essential; merely causing of wrongful loss would not be
sufficient. The offence of extortion is not complete until delivery of property by the person put
in fear.
In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay13, it was held that for an offence of extortion, fear or threat must
be used. Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person it
must appear that he had held out some threat to do or it to do 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 and
says that if money is not paid to him, he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to
offence of extortion.
In this case chief minister A.R. Antulay, asked the sugar co-operatives, whose cases were
pending before the government for consideration, to make donations and promised to look into
their cases. It was held by the supreme court that these facts do not constitute the offence of
extortion. There was no evidence at all that the managements of sugar co-operatives have been
put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats.
In Queen v Tomlinson14, Willis J, said “ with regard to the doctrine that the threat must be of
nature to operate on a man of reasonably sound or ordinarily firm mind, I only desire to say
that it ought, in v. judgement, to receive a liberal construction in practice; otherwise great
injustice may be done, for person who are thus practised upon are not as a rule of average
firmness; but I quote appreciate the fact that the threat mot be one that ought to influence no
body.”
Robbery- in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

12
Robertson, 10 Cox.9.
13
A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 163
14
(1895)1QB 706, 710.
When theft is robbery- theft is robbery if in order to committing the theft, or in committing
theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by 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 person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that
person in fear of instant death or 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.

Illustrations-
a) In a case where a person A takes someone else’s money from his pocket and without
his consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing the theft, has
voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to another person. A has therefore committed
robbery.
b) A obtains property from B 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 case of extortion and
punishable as such but it is not robbery, unless B is put in fear of instant death of his
child.

Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion. Robbery means a
felonious taking from the person of another or in his presence against his will, by violence or
putting him in fear15. The chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent
fear of violence. When theft or extortion is caused with violence causing or causing fear of
death, hurt or wrongful restraint, it is robbery. Violence must be in course of theft and not
subsequently, also it is not necessary that violence should actually be committed but even
attempt to commit is enough.
Intention should also be there in order to commit the offence of robbery and intention must be
to deprive the complainant of the property, and should for that purpose either hurt him or place
hm under wrongful restrain. The definition of robbery requires that either death or hurt or
wrongful confinement is caused or it must be actually found that the victims were put in fear
of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful confinement is caused or it must be actually

15
Karali Prasad Dutta v East Indian Railway Company A.I.R. 1928 Cal 498.
found that victims were put in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful
confinement.

In R v Robinson16 it was alleged that D, who was owed £ 7 by V's wife, approached V,
brandishing a knife. A fight followed, during which V dropped a £ 5 note. D picked it up and
demanded the remaining £ 2 owed to him. Allowing D's appeal against conviction for robbery,
the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had to prove that D was guilty of theft, and that
he would not be (under s2(1)(a) of the 1968 Act) if he honestly believed that he had a right in
law to deprive V of the money, even though he knew he was not entitled to use the knife to get
it.

In R v Forrester17V had retained D's £ 200 deposit when D's tenancy terminated. D believed
he had been asked to leave without justification and that the deposit was being unfairly
withheld. D, accompanied by a friend, went to V's house, burst in when the door was opened
and seized some items whilst his friend restrained V. His intention was to use the items to
bargain for the return of his money. If this failed, he would sell the items and the use money
for a deposit on another flat, returning the excess to V. D's conviction for robbery was upheld
by the Court of Appeal. It was held that he knew he had no right to the items themselves and
so could not claim that he was not dishonest under s2(1)(a).18

16
[1977] Crim LR 173
17
[1992] Crim LR 793
18
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/robbery.php
Conclusion- the concept of theft, extortion and robbery is a prominent topic in Indian penal
code and its importance can not be ignored. A society is formed by various groups of people
and its important to check the activities of the people in that particular society. Crime is
somehow existed in all societies whether it was ancient time or modern period, it was a very
pertinent issue. Among other crimes theft, extortion and robbery was one of the main crimes
which was prevailed in all time and still prevalent in many parts of the world. the concept of
criminal law is to prevent these crimes in a society so that law and order can be prevail. In
earlier times there was no codified law because of which it was hard to provide justice to the
victim, it was totally depend on the authority that how they dealt with it. But with the advent
of British, codification of law came into being. Definition of crimes was defined and
punishments were prescribed for those who violated the laid rules and regulation. The
development of crimes is of evolving nature, it evolved from time to time.
Bibliography
Web Reference-

I.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/extortion.htm
II.
https://legaldictionary.net/extortion/
III.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1586013/
IV.
https://www.casemine.com/search/in?q=extortion+cases
V.
https://www.legalcrystal.com/cases/search/name:indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-
section-383-extortion
VI. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/robbery.php
VII. https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult2014.aspx

Cases-

I. K.N. Mehra v State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369, (1957) Cr LJ 552 (SC)
II. DPP v Ray1974 Ac 370
III. Jagannath Misra AIR 1929 Pat 429: (1929) 30 Cri LJ 546(Pat).
IV. R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 163
V. Queen v Tomlinson (1895)1QB 706, 710.
VI. Karali Prasad Dutta v East Indian Railway Company A.I.R. 1928 Cal 498.
VII. R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173
VIII. R v Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793
IX. Venkata Sami (1890) 14 Mad. 229.
X. H.J. Ransom v. Triloki Nath
XI. Durga Tewari (1909) 36 Cal. 758.
XII. Vinod Samuel v. Delhi Administration 1991 Cri. L.J. 3359 (S.C.)

Books-
1- Indian penal code (prof. S.N. Misra).
2-Ratanlal & Dheerajlal Law of Crimes 27th edition volume 2
3-text book of criminal law Glanville Williams
4-Criminal Law P.S.A Pillai
5-Criminal law cases and materials K.D. Gaur