B owes some money to A. A in order to put pressure on B to pay the debt takes away without B’s consent two of his cows and ties them in his house. Is A guilty of any offense?

Question: B owes some money to A. A in order to put pressure on B to pay the debt takes away without B’s consent two of his cows and ties them in his house. Is A guilty of any offence? [Bihar (A.P.O.) 1989]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [B owes some money to A. A in order to put pressure on B to pay the debt takes away without B’s consent two of his cows and ties them in his house. Is A guilty of any offence?]

Answer

The removal of animals grazing in open lands, where it had been left by the owner, is theft. However, if a person, the owner or a stranger, removes cattle from the pound where they are secured, without paying the levied fees, he is guilty of theft as he deprives the pound-keeper of his legitimate fees. The Nagpur High Court has held that ‘taking’ for the purpose of this section must be ‘dishonest’ within the meaning of section 24 of the IPC. But it need not necessarily cause ‘wrongful gain’ to the taker, it is enough if it causes ‘wrongful loss to the owner.

In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1963 SC 1094], 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 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 possession of the file and caused wrongful loss to the department. So, it was held that it amounted to an offence under section 378, IPC.

In Queen Empress v. Shrichurn Chungo (1895) ILR 22 Cal 1017(FB) when A, a creditor, took movable property out of his debtor’s possession without his consent, with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt, A was held guilty of theft.

In the present case at hand, B takes away A’s cows without his consent. Even though he did so with the intention to put pressure on B to pay his debt, he has unlawfully taken out the cows of B will come under temporary Deprivation or Dispossession to the true owner from his property, A will be said to have committed theft under section 378, IPC.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions