Cases of Theft, Exhortation of Robbery or Valuable Security, and Robbery Dacoity - Case Study Example

Law Theft A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence. It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for. Theft, exhortation of robbery or of valuable security, robbery dacoity etc. are considered to be the serious crimes for which serious punishments are being recommended. The following are the punishments normally used to impose on the culprits as per the existing law.1 Criminal misappropriation of property (two years or fine or both); criminal breach of trust (three years or fine or both) ; receiving stolen property (the same as for the last offence) ; cheating (one year or fine or both) ; dis­honest transfer of property to defraud creditors (two years or fine or both) ; mischief (three months or fine or both) ; criminal trespass, i.e., trespass on. property in another's possession, with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy him (three months) ; house-trespass, i.e., trespass in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or a building used, as a place for worship, as a place for the custody of property (one year) : house-breaking (two years and fine) ; breaking open a receptacle containing property (two years or fine or both). A few words are required to explain some of these offences.2 So a theft can be defined as; A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.’ Part 1: A. Job was stopped in a stolen car. He had bought the car in good faith paying a reasonable price for it but had refused to hand it back to the original owner when he found it was stolen. Even if it is not a purposeful one, it is a crime since he owns a stolen car. According to the law, it is his duty to ensure the purchase with good faith and it is all from criminal bondages. Here he failed in his duty and being the owner of a stolen car, he is a culprit before law. So it is his duty to return the good to its owner .But he refuses to do so , means he wilfully want to commit a crime. This is an offence.3 A entrusts his driver with the care of his watch while he is playing a game of tennis. The driver runs away with it. The driver commits theft. A is a watch-repairer to whom the owner of a watch entrusts it for repair. A runs away with it. A commits the offence of criminal breach of trust, but not theft. This is because the watch is in A's possession, and he does not move it from another's possession. A finds a watch on the road and takes it home. Afterwards A hears that its owner claims it. A keeps the watch himself or runs away with it. A commits the offence of criminal misappropriation. He does not commit theft, because when he took the watch the owner had lost it and it was in nobody's possession.. If A refused to return it to him he is not guilty of any criminal offence. He may be liable to be sued for damages in a civil court. A person may be guilty of theft of his own property. For instance A pledges his watch to B, and takes a loan; before the loan is repaid, A takes the watch from B without 2's consent. The offence of receiving stolen property consists in receiving or retaining stolen property knowing or having reason to believe it to be such. A dishonest intent is required. Stolen property means property obtained by committing theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. Same way, Job is acting with dishonest intent, or intent to gain property to which the gainer is not entitled, or to cause loss of property to a person who is entitled to it.It is an offence. B. Yu speaks little English. He shows Smith a taxi driver, a written address and gives him £10. The fare should be £9.50. Smith indicates that £10 is not enough and takes a £50 note from Yu’s wallet. Yu permits him to do so Deceit A person commits the wrong of deceit if he makes a false state­ment to another and thereby causes loss to the latter, e.g., a person selling a horse as being free from vice when he knew it was vicious, the promoters of a company inducing the public to take shares by making statements in the prospectus which to their knowledge are false. Here Smith is cheating Yu. He is dishonest to his customer. It will be a different situation if Smith tells Yu that the fare is £9.50 but he will charge him £50and Yu then agrees to it. Smith is guilty of theft. 4 C. Rod was stopped and searched and found to be in possession of a £10, ring that had been stolen in a burglary. Rod states that he found the ring on a canal bank and did not believe he would find the true owner. How does a Person become liable to pay Damages? It is worthwhile to know for what fault a person may expect to be called upon to pay damages in these and other cases. There are two types of wrong doing, intentional misconduct, and negli­gence. These are the usual types and a plaintiff ordinarily has to prove either of them in order to succeed. But there are special cases where he can succeed without proving that the defendant was guilty of such conduct. In the case in question, Rod had found the ring on the canal bank and it was worth £10. If his belief is that there is no one around at the time that he could ask if it belonged to them and he tried to find the owner of the ring but could not find anyone and he believed that he had taken all the necessary steps to discover the owner, then he cannot be guilty of theft. 5 Rod is not guilty of theft. D. Bill is a tenant of a farm and he sells 300 yards of lawn belonging to the farms owner to obtain money for his holiday. Sale of movable property can be made by delivery or by an oral contract to deliver it. A person who purchases immovable property has to examine previous title deeds by getting copies of them, if necessary, from the Registration Office in the locality. If he fails to do so, he cannot plead ignorance and get a better title than his transferor had. A sells land to B and receives the price. Suppose A had already sold it or mortgaged it to C. C's title will prevail over B's. B cannot complain, as he should have investigated the title of A before he purchased the land. But in spite of all reasonable care and enquiry a person may be deceived. If his transferor had no right to transfer the property, he gets no right to it. There are certain rules to protect him. Some illustra­tions are the following: (I) A purchases property with his own money, but in the name of B. A is really the owner of the property, and B is only a name-lender. Suppose B without A's knowledge sells the land to C, a bona fide purchaser. C will get a good title against A. (2) A guardian of a minor or a trustee has the power to transfer property for discharging a debt which cannot be otherwise discharged. A purchaser who honestly takes a transfer after due enquiry is protected even though it may turn out that in reality the transfer was not justified, by necessity.6 (3) A has agreed to sell his land to B and receives the price. He has not, however, executed a sale deed in favour of B. But he executes one in favour of C, who is ignorant of A's agreement with B. C will get the property and not B. But if A has placed B in possession of the land, C cannot plead that he was ignorant of B's rights, and would not, therefore, obtain a good title. Here, a tenant cannot steal the land which he possesses by virtue of the tenancy, nor of things forming part of the land. Bill is a tenant which means that he is possession of the land. He cannot steal land according to the section 4(2) (b) of the Theft Act 1968 as stated above. Although he has appropriated property of another but because he is in possession of the land by virtue of tenancy he cannot be guilty of stealing by appropriating anything farming part of land. In the scenario in question, Bill is not guilty of theft. 7 Part 2: Tom was coming home from a fishing trip when he comes across a shooting party hosted by Lord Thompson. He watches the activity from the road and sees a number of birds killed by the shooters and the birds are retrieved by the gun dogs and taken back to the shooters. Tom sees a pheasant shot and its dead body falls into the road near him. He sees a dog running to collect it but before it can do so Tom picks it up and takes it home for his Dinner. What possible offences may have been committed in the circumstances above, state the offences you would consider charging and why. A person may complain of injury to his status as a member of a caste, club, or association, e.g., if he has been improperly expelled from it. If a person's right to hold an office say the office of a trustee in a temple or mosque is disturbed, he has a right to sue the wrong­doer. Similarly a person may complain if he is prevented from exercising his right to worship in any lawful manner, or his right to vote in an election.8 Actions for damages have also been allowed for annoyance or emotional disturbance or distress caused wantonly, e.g., by a publication of an obituary notice about a living person, a motion picture based on the story of a woman's life several years after the incidents in it had been forgotten. The decisions of American courts in such cases have not been so far accepted in England but show the forward trend of social opinion in some western countries in widening the range of the individual's rights. In the case in question, Tom has picked up a pheasant shot by a shooter which fell on the road, not on the land owned by Lord Thompson and one of the dogs is on the way to collect it. Tom has committed a theft from Lord Thompson by stealing a wild animal being reduced into possession. It is being shot to reduce into possession by the shooter on behalf of Lord Thompson. Therefore although it is not on Lord’s land it is still theft from the Lord and the fact that the pheasant fell dead on the road does not make a difference to Tom’s liability. Tom is guilty of theft. Part 3: Ed buys a car from Peter. He pays the market value for the car and has no knowledge that the car has in fact been stolen from Colin. Ed is later told that the car is stolen but he decides to sell it to Graham. Does Ed commit the offence of Theft? What possible offences may have been committed in the circumstances above, state the offences you would consider charging and why. Injuries to Property An injury to property may be to different rights in it, the right of possession, of ownership or of enjoyment. The usual type of injury to possession is called a trespass. The mere entry of a person into another's land or house without the latter's per-% mission is a trespass. The latter can get damages for it, though the amount may be small, if the trespasser not merely enters the land or house, but turns out the person in possession, the latter may sue the trespasser to recover his property as well as the value of the profits lost by him. He may do so, even though he is not the true owner and is a trespasser himself. Indeed he has this remedy, even if the person who turns him out is the true owner. If he sues the owner within 6 months of the dispossession he will get back possession of the property. A person in possession of movable property can claim damages, if another person merely lays hands on it without his leave. He will however, get only small damages. But the damages will be larger if some actual harm is done. Nuisance is the wrong done to the right of enjoyment of property. A person in possession of a house or land as its owner or occupier has a right to enjoy it without disturbance by another. This right may be of two kinds, natural or acquired. Ed is a bona fide purchaser as he has bought this car in good faith, paying reasonable value for it. He sold the car to Graham when he discovered that it was stolen. In this case Ed cannot be guilty of theft as he has paid the reasonable price believing that the seller was the owner of the car. Ed has appropriated the car as a bona fide purchaser and has a right to deal with it as an owner as in section 3(2) (above) and it will not amount to theft. It is also established that Ed was not dishonest in receiving the property and sold the car for his own benefit and the realisation is not for the benefit of another because as held by court, Ed himself cannot be ‘another’. Ed is not guilty of theft or handling stolen goods. Part 4: John goes into a supermarket and as he is walking around he notices that an assistant has left a price ticket machine on a shelf. John thinks it would be funny to go around the store putting prices on labels in order to cause chaos. He goes around the store putting cheaper price labels on goods he only wants to cause confusion he does not intend to benefit from his actions. Does he commit any offence? Every owner of land has a natural right to make use of it and the advantages arising naturally from its situation. For instance he has a right to the support of his land by adjoining land. So, if his land subsides by reason of an excavation in adjoining land, his right to support is injured and the injury is a nuisance. Every owner of land abutting a natural stream has a right to make use of the water for his domestic purposes and for reasonable require­ments of irrigation. He has a right to the flow of the water past his land without alteration in quantity, quality or temperature. A diversion of the water or pollution of it by an upper owner is a nuisance, of which he can complain. Every owner of land has a right that his health and comfort should not be disturbed by any unreasonable use of other land nearby; he can therefore complain of excessive noise or an offensive smell arising from a neighbour's use of property. He has a right to complain of an escape of things from the neighbour's land, if thereby his physical comfort is dis­turbed or his land is damaged, e.g., by the escape of water, dirt, animals or insects. These are some instances of injuries to natural rights in land. The concept of appropriation involved adverse interference with, or usurpation of, some right of the owner. The defendant, by removing the goods from the shelves and switching the labels, had adversely interfered with or usurped the rights of the owner of the goods to ensure that they were sold and paid for at the proper prices, it being immaterial in which order those acts had taken place; and that those acts had constituted an appropriation. John is guilty of theft as he has changed price labels and assumed the rights of an owner. It is the owner who has the right to decide what price he is going to sell the items for. Part 5: Tom goes into Bills caravan without his permission. Tom turns on the TV set and watches the horse racing. He then leaves the caravan in good order and locked up. Nuisance in the sense just explained is different from a public nuisance. A public nuisance is a disturbance of a right belonging to the public as a whole. For instance, if a person sustains physical injury by collision with an unlighted obstruction on a public road, he can claim damages against the wrongdoer. A public nuisance may consist also in a danger existing in property adjoining a highway. So if the "owner of such property keeps it in an unsafe condition, he will be liable to pay damages to a person on the highway who is injured thereby. This case is related to, ‘Abstracting of electricity’. ‘A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Tom has gone into Bill’s caravan without his permission. It is enough to establish that he was dishonest in using electricity as he had no authority to be there and watch TV, as held in McCrea die. He dishonestly used electricity or caused it to be wasted without Bill’s permission. This is not theft as there is a separate offence for this purpose. Tom is guilty of abstracting the electricity. Peter, Colin and Ed decide to Rob a Security Truck outside a bank. They take with them a shotgun with a 21 inch barrel, an imitation pistol and an ordinary shotgun.They intend to us the weapons if they are stopped by anyone.They wait out side the bank for the truck to arrive. Peter and Colin leave their weapons in the car near by. Ed keeps the shotgun with him. The vehicle pulls up and Ed fires the gun at the truck. They steal the money and run off.Lee a brave passer by tries to stop them but Peter points the pistol at him and says “back off or you are dead”. They make good their escape.What offences under the Firearms Act have been committed? A nuisance that is a common cause of complaint in the courts is the disturbance of health and comfort by noise, smell or other source of discomfort. Since every owner of land has a right to use his property, his neighbours cannot ordinarily complain of his user.9 But they can do so if his user is unreasonable and causes substantial discomfort to them. This is noticeable from the cases in the English courts and there can be no doubt that in India the assertion of this right would help in the improvement of the standards of reasonable and neighbourly behaviour that now prevail.10 It is not necessary in a suit against him to prove that the trespass was due to his intentional or negligent conduct ; nor does he escape liability for damages by showing that there was no such conduct on his part.11 Firearm:- ‘(1)     In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. In Moore v Goode ham, D was convicted of selling a firearm. The weapon was an airgun which might cause fatal injury if discharged at a person's eye at very short range but otherwise would only cause trivial injury. The Court held that, the test is not whether it is designed or intended to cause injury from which death will result, but whether it is a weapon which, however misused, may cause injury from which death may result.12 Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm with intent— (a) By means thereof to cause, or (b) To enable another person by means thereof to cause, Any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person. Ed and Peter are guilty of an offence under this section as both of them used their weapons to cause fear of violence. Ed committed the offence by firing at the truck while Peter did it by pointing his pistol at Lee, the passer by and threatening him by saying. ‘Back off or you are dead’.13 Use of firearm to resist arrest (1) It is an offence for a person to make or attempt to make any use whatsoever of a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person. (2) If a person, at the time of his committing or being arrested for an offence specified in Schedule 1 to this Act, has in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm, he shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection unless he shows that he had it in his possession for a lawful object. Ed, Peter and Colin are also guilty of an offence under this section. This is because they had guns on them and they would have used them if they tried to escape or avoid capture. Since they had already shot at the truck and Peter had threatened Lee to help them to escape so, if the Police did stop them they may have even used them against them. Read More