Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoity, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Ses­sion—Non-compoundable.

Comments

(i) When no part of prosecution case is found reliable including the alleged recovery of stolen property at the instance of accused it seems to be on effort by police to involve the accused persons by hook or by crook therefore conviction of co-accused is also liable to be set aside; State v. Chhotey Lal, 1999 Cr LJ 3411 (Del).

(ii) When articles were received soon after dacoity and proved to have been stolen in dacoity, offence falls under section 412 and not under section 395; Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 129: (1982) Cr LJ 610.

—————————

1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for “transportation for life” (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Compoundable by the owner of the property stolen with the permission of the court.

STATE AMENDMENT

Tamil Nadu:

Section 411 shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) of that section and after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be added, namely:—

“(2) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any idol or icon stolen from any building used as a place of worship knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), be pun­ished with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than two years but which shall not be less than two thousand rupees:

Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than two years.”.

[Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1993, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 13-7-1993)].

Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which 1[***] criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designed as “stolen property”, 2[whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without 3[India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.

———————–

1. The words “the” and “offence of” rep. by Act 12 of 1891, sec. 2 and Sch. I and Act 8 of 1882, sec. 9, respectively.

2. Ins. by Act 8 of 1882, sec. 9.

3. The words “British India” have successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., to read as above.

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Comments

Misappropriation of amount

Where the amount was not paid by passengers to the accused as such but to the Indian Airlines Corporation and as soon as the receipt for the amount actually received from the passengers was given by the accused on behalf of the corporation, he was entrusted with that amount. His conduct in falsifying the counter foil and fraudentently misappropriating the amounts would make him guilty of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 409; Som Nath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1990.

————————

1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for “transporta­tion for life” (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).

Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compounded by the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed with the permission of the court.