[ Ссылка ] is an interactive online platform that makes it faster and easier to find and hire the best Lawyers in any city/court in India.

This section defines stolen property. It says that property the possession whereof has been transferred either by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has either been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as ‘stolen property’; and it is immaterial as to whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed within or without India. But the property ceases to be stolen property if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person who is legally entitled to the possession of the same.

Stolen property has been defined as that property which has been stolen, extorted or robbed, or which has been obtained by criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. The transfer of possession of the property by any of the modes stated above is a must. It is of no consequence at all whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within India or without India.

If stolen property later on comes into the possession of someone who is legally entitled to its possession, then that property does not remain stolen property any more. According to section 27, Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930 a person who buys stolen property in good faith does not acquire any ownership in it.

The words ‘whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India’ were added by Act VIII of 1882. These have considerably widened the scope of the provision. Where a person handed over a stolen watch to the accused in presence of the police who then went through the formality of seizing the same from him, it was held that the accused could not be held guilty of possessing stolen property.

The offender under this section must either dishonestly receive stolen property or he must dishonestly retain stolen property. While doing so he must either have knowledge that that property is a stolen property or he must have reason to believe that that property is a stolen property.

The use of the alternative expressions shows that the prosecution must establish that the accused had dishonestly received stolen property, or if he did not receive the same dishonestly he dishonestly retained it. The word ‘dishonestly’ has the same meaning as given under section 24 of the Code. Dishonest retention does not necessarily mean dishonest receipt of the property.

The offence under section 411 is cognizable, non-bailable and compoundable, and is triable by any magistrate.

Advocate Jaspreet Singh Rai can be consulted for further information at [ Ссылка ] or by calling at +91-9599000555

свернуть