Crimes Against Property And Public Order
🏛️ Crimes Against Property and Public Order
I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
1. Meaning
Crimes against property are offences that involve dishonestly or fraudulently taking, destroying, or interfering with another person’s property.
These offences protect the right of ownership and possession of movable or immovable property.
2. Major Property Offences under IPC
| Section | Offence | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 378 – 382 IPC | Theft, aggravated theft | Dishonest taking of movable property without consent. |
| 383 – 389 IPC | Extortion | Obtaining property through fear or threat. |
| 390 – 402 IPC | Robbery, Dacoity | Theft or extortion with violence or group involvement. |
| 403 – 409 IPC | Criminal Misappropriation & Breach of Trust | Wrongful use or conversion of property entrusted to the accused. |
| 415 – 420 IPC | Cheating & Fraud | Deceiving someone to deliver property. |
| 425 – 440 IPC | Mischief | Causing wrongful loss or damage to property. |
3. Detailed Explanation of Key Property Crimes
(a) Theft (Section 378 IPC)
Definition:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property, is said to commit theft.
Essentials:
Movable property must be involved.
Dishonest intention.
Property must be taken without consent.
Some movement of property is necessary.
Case 1: Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963 AIR 1094)
Facts:
A government employee removed a file from his office and gave it to another person who took it home for a night. The file was later returned.
Issue:
Whether temporary removal of property amounts to theft?
Held:
The Supreme Court held it was theft. The dishonest intention existed because the act was unauthorized and done for wrongful gain.
The duration of removal is irrelevant if the property was taken without consent and dishonestly.
Principle:
Even temporary deprivation of property without consent constitutes theft if done dishonestly.
(b) Extortion (Section 383 IPC)
Definition:
Extortion means intentionally putting any person in fear of injury to induce them to deliver property or valuable security.
Essentials:
Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury.
Inducing that person to deliver property.
Dishonest intention to obtain wrongful gain.
Case 2: R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984 AIR 684)
Facts:
A politician (A.R. Antulay) was accused of using his position to demand donations from businessmen to a trust in exchange for political and administrative favors.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that inducing someone to part with property or money through misuse of position and fear of loss constitutes extortion.
Principle:
Extortion can occur even without physical threat; abuse of authority or fear of harm to business or reputation can amount to “fear of injury”.
(c) Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 405 IPC)
Definition:
When a person entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriates or converts it for his own use, it constitutes criminal breach of trust.
Essentials:
Entrustment of property.
Dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
Violation of trust or legal contract.
Case 3: Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan (1972 AIR 1490)
Facts:
An accountant collected money from customers for his employer but failed to deposit it, using it for personal benefit.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the moment the accountant used entrusted money for himself, criminal breach of trust was complete.
Principle:
Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are the key ingredients.
Mere failure to return property is not enough unless dishonest intention is proved.
(d) Cheating (Section 415 IPC)
Definition:
Cheating means deceiving a person and fraudulently inducing them to deliver property or to do something they would not do otherwise.
Essentials:
Deception of a person.
Fraudulent or dishonest inducement.
Delivery or loss of property or valuable security.
Mens rea (intent to deceive) at the time of inducement.
Case 4: Harnam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1975 AIR 236)
Facts:
The accused induced a person to pay money on the false promise of securing him a government job. He had no such authority.
Held:
The Court held it was cheating, as the dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.
Principle:
If the intention to deceive is present from the beginning, it amounts to cheating; if the intention arises later, it is only breach of contract.
(e) Mischief (Section 425 IPC)
Definition:
Whoever, with intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to another, destroys or changes any property, commits mischief.
Essentials:
Intention or knowledge to cause wrongful loss/damage.
Destruction or alteration of property.
Property must belong to another.
Case 5: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ganeswara Rao (1963 AIR 1850)
Facts:
The accused damaged government irrigation equipment during a protest.
Held:
The Court held that destruction of public property, even during protest or anger, amounts to mischief because it causes wrongful loss to the government.
Principle:
Even if motive is political or emotional, intent to cause loss or knowledge of damage is sufficient for mischief.
Summary of Property Crimes
| Offence | Section | Key Element | Example Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theft | 378 IPC | Dishonest taking without consent | Pyare Lal Bhargava |
| Extortion | 383 IPC | Inducing fear to obtain property | R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay |
| Breach of Trust | 405 IPC | Dishonest use of entrusted property | Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan |
| Cheating | 415 IPC | Fraudulent inducement | Harnam Singh v. State of H.P. |
| Mischief | 425 IPC | Intentional damage to property | State of A.P. v. Ganeswara Rao |
II. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
1. Meaning
Crimes against public order are offences that disturb societal peace, tranquility, or the sense of security among citizens.
They threaten the functioning of the state and the rule of law.
2. Major Offences under IPC
| Section | Offence | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 141–160 IPC | Unlawful Assembly, Rioting, Affray | Offences involving collective disturbance of peace. |
| 124A IPC | Sedition | Attempt to incite hatred or disaffection against the government. |
| 153A, 153B IPC | Promoting enmity between groups | Based on religion, caste, or region. |
| 295–298 IPC | Offences relating to religion | Outraging religious feelings, defiling sacred objects. |
| 505 IPC | Statements conducing to public mischief | Circulation of false or inflammatory information. |
3. Detailed Discussion with Case Law
Case 6: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 955)
Facts:
The accused, a political activist, delivered speeches criticizing the government and calling for revolution. He was charged with sedition under Section 124A IPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but limited its scope — only incitement to violence or public disorder amounts to sedition.
Principle:
Mere criticism of the government is not sedition. There must be a tendency to incite violence or disturb public peace.
Case 7: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
(Although primarily about personal liberty, it also covers public order principles.)
Facts:
The petitioner’s passport was impounded “in the interest of public order” without giving her reasons.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that “public order” must be distinguished from “law and order.”
Law and order: affects individuals.
Public order: affects community peace at large.
Principle:
Only actions that disturb society’s peace and tranquility qualify as offences against public order.
Case 8: Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia (1960 AIR 633)
Facts:
The accused was detained for making speeches urging people to break laws (refuse to pay taxes).
Held:
The Court held that not every law-breaking act affects public order. There must be a proximate and reasonable connection between the act and disturbance of public order.
Principle:
A remote or indirect connection with disturbance of public peace is insufficient.
Case 9: Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961 AIR 884)
Facts:
The accused was part of a protest that turned violent. He was charged under Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly) and Section 146 (rioting).
Held:
The Court held that when five or more persons assemble with a common object likely to disturb peace, it amounts to unlawful assembly, even if violence does not actually occur.
Principle:
The intention and potential to disturb peace are sufficient to constitute a public order offence.
Case 10: Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431
Facts:
The accused published material promoting hostility between religious groups.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that promoting hatred or enmity between different religious groups under Section 153A IPC is a serious crime against public order.
Principle:
Freedom of speech does not extend to speech that creates communal hatred or disturbs public peace.
III. Comparison of Property and Public Order Crimes
| Aspect | Crimes Against Property | Crimes Against Public Order |
|---|---|---|
| Object of Protection | Individual’s ownership and possession. | Society’s peace and tranquility. |
| Type of Harm | Economic or proprietary loss. | Disturbance of law, order, or public safety. |
| Examples | Theft, Extortion, Cheating. | Rioting, Sedition, Unlawful Assembly. |
| Primary Section Range | Sections 378–462 IPC. | Sections 121–160, 295–505 IPC. |
IV. Conclusion
Crimes Against Property protect individual economic interests and ownership rights.
Crimes Against Public Order safeguard collective security and peace.
Both categories reflect how law balances individual rights and social order.
The mens rea, intention, and effect on society determine the gravity of these offences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments