શું ચોરી નો ગુનો કબુલ થાય ? કલમ ૩૭૯

સમાજ વિરોધી ગુનો છે. પરંતુ જો કોઈ પ્રાઈવેટ પાર્ટી ના ત્યાં ચોરી થયેલ હોય અને તેની સમંતિ હોય તો ગુનો સમાઘાન થી પતિ શકે છે.

અથવા તો નામદાર કોર્ટ કબુલ કરાવી ને નાની સજા એટલે કે કોર્ટ ઉઠતા સુધીની સજા અને સામાન્ય દંડ કરી ને છોડી શકે છે.

In the case of Nobin Chunder Holder, (1866) 6 WR (Cr) 79, the accused discovered some outside fisherman poaching on his master’s fisheries while acting in the best interests of his owner. He took control of their nets and kept them under his control. The court determined that his purpose was to safeguard his master’s interests rather than to steal the fishermen’s nets. It was held that the accused cannot be punished under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the case of Shriram v. Thakurdas, (1978)  the Chief Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai demolished an unlawful construction. He, the overseer, and others were accused of stealing the debris that had accumulated. They removed debris without intending to generate a wrongful gain, according to the Court. As a result, it is not a theft.

The prosecution demonstrated in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh (1989) that the government owns the forest and that the trees were cut down by the accused. It was held by the court that it was theft and the accused was punishable under Section 379.

In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963), The appellant accused was found guilty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer’s office when he had a file removed from the Secretariat by a clerk, took it home, and gave it to his friend, the co-accused, who replaced certain documents with others. The Court held that removing an office file from a Chief Engineer’s office for a day or two and making it available to a private individual for a day or two is theft since the act fulfills all the ingredients of theft under Section 378 of IPC and can be punished under Section 379.

The Court stated in State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath (1979), in which 5 accused were involved in the transfer of possession of seven tyres and seven tubes from a railway shed, that the transfer of possession of movable property without the consent of the person in possession does not have to be permanent or for a long period of time, nor does it have to be found in the accused’s custody. Even a temporary transfer will be enough to meet the criteria under Section 378.

In the case of K. N. Mehra v.The State of Rajasthan (1957), The Appellant attended the Indian Air Force Academy in Jodhpur as a training cadet. Mehra was scheduled to fly in a Dakota as part of his training with Om Prakash, a flying cadet, but Mehra and Phillips took off in a Harvard H.T. 822 at around 5 a.m. (which was not the prescribed time). This was done without any authorization or observance of any of the formalities required for an aircraft flight. They were discovered to have force landed in Pakistan. They contacted the Indian High Commission a few days later, and on their way back to India, they were arrested in Jodhpur and charged with aircraft theft. The Court stated that the absence of the person’s consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intent in so taking at the time are essential ingredients of theft and hence the appellant was rightfully convicted of theft.