This article has been written by Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, a 3rd year BA.LLB (Hons.) Student from CMR University, School of Legal Studies, Bengaluru.

INTRODUCTION

According to wide rules against receiving stolen items, it is illegal to accept or buy something you know or suspect was obtained illegally, including through theft. Contrarily, receiving stolen property is a distinct offence that should not be confused with similar offences like theft, robbery, or extortion. Depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case, receiving stolen property may be charged as either a misdemeanour or a felony. This unlawful activity aims to deter individuals from buying or concealing stolen property in order to deter theft or larceny in general and to reward and encourage criminal conduct. Obtaining items that have been confirmed to be stolen is forbidden. This property might have been stolen, coerced, or acquired in any other way. Purchasing such things is illegal since it encourages theft, robbery, and other similar crimes because the person stealing the commodities would make money by selling the stolen products. Acquiring stolen products is thus forbidden to stop criminals from making money off of their criminal activity. It also forbids anybody from hiding the fact that a piece of property was acquired unlawfully. Receiving stolen goods is covered under a number of provisions of the IPC, from Section 410 through Section 414.

The following components often need to be shown by the prosecution in order to get a conviction for receiving stolen property: 

• Before they arrived, the goods had to have been taken. 
• The goods must be delivered by a different person than the alleged burglar. 
• Receivers of stolen goods must have actual knowledge of the theft or should have known about it and the aim to permanently deny the property’s rightful owner (e.g., by keeping it, hiding it, selling it, giving it away, etc.).

Stolen Property

Regardless of whether the transfer took place domestically or abroad, Section 410 defines “stolen property” as “property whose possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, or robbery and which has been criminally misappropriated or with respect to which a criminal breach of trust has been committed.” It continues by stating that if something is later obtained by someone who has a legal right to own it, it is no longer considered to have been stolen.

Essentials of Stolen Property

• Stolen Property: A person must receive stolen items in order to commit the offense of receiving stolen goods. Property that is transferred in one of the five ways listed in Section 410 is deemed to have been stolen. These are through theft, criminal misappropriation, robbery, extortion, and breach of trust.

• • Real Estate Without Ownership: It is based on the idea of res nullius, which describes a piece of property with no owner or one whose current owner has abandoned it. As a piece of property with no owner cannot be stolen, receiving it does not constitute receiving stolen property.
  • Territory: It doesn’t matter if the transfer, theft, or breach of trust took place inside or outside of India, according to Section 410. Any transfer of such property, whether inside or outside of India, qualifies it as “stolen property.”
  • Alternatively acquired property: It should be highlighted that property obtained via fraud or forgeries is not regarded as stolen property.

• A piece of property that has been swapped or transformed: Property acquired by exchanging or converting stolen goods is not considered to be theft in and of itself. For instance, money obtained by selling stolen goods is not regarded as stolen property.

Acquiring or holding of dishonestly stolen property 

According to Section 411, a person who dishonestly takes or maintains stolen items while knowing or having reason to suspect that the commodities are stolen may be sentenced to up to three years in jail, a fine, or both. Anybody who thinks or knows that the commodities are stolen must not accept or keep them. Responsibility is imposed under Article 411 for both dishonest “retention” and dishonest “receipt.” The difference between the two is that in the former, the person obtained the property dishonestly, but they may or may not have continued to do so. Yet, in the latter scenario, the person’s mindset changes from “honest” to “dishonest,” and he goes on to retain that property dishonestly to himself. To prove the accuser’s guilt, it is necessary to present the components listed below: 

• The accused had stolen property in his or her possession.
• Before the accused took possession of the property, it belonged to someone else.
• The defendant had knowledge of or reason to believe that the stolen goods was theirs. 
• The defendant planned to retain or sell the victim’s property out of the owner’s hands. 
• As a cognizable offence under Section 411, a warrant should be requested in the first instance. The offence is not subject to bail and may only be amended with the court’s approval. The Magistrate hears the case. 

Receiving or Retaining Knowingly Stolen Goods

The mere act of getting stolen property from anyone for any reason does not constitute a violation of Section 411. The act is only considered illegal when someone purchases such items knowing or having reason to think that they were stolen goods. According to the definition of “believe,” the situation must be such that a rational person would be persuaded that the item being acquired or dealt with is stolen. It is not sufficient to prove that the accused was careless, had reason to suspect that the items were stolen, or failed to undertake a sufficient inquiry to ascertain the status of that property if he acquires property that he is unaware is stolen. Whether or whether the recipient knows who the thief is immaterial. The initial possession of the item is not illegal, but if the owner maintains it after learning that it was stolen property, they are responsible.

In the case of Bhanwarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, the defendant purchased 9 kg of silver for a pittance while being aware that it was stolen property. The Court found that the person was not a legitimate buyer. At his request, many silver ingots were retrieved, and his conviction was upheld. In the case of Nagappa Dhondiba vs. State of Karnataka, the stolen jewellery of a deceased person—which she had been wearing when she was alive—was found within 30 days of the deceased’s murder, according to information provided by the accused. Since there was insufficient evidence to establish the accused’s guilt under those reasons, the Court determined that the accused could only be held accountable under Section 411 and not Section 302 for murder or Section 394 for willfully inflicting harm during a robbery. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Abdul Gaffar, a copper pot containing Rs. 200 was removed from the temple. The person who was found to be in possession of the marijuana was assumed to be a thief. The home was worth 600 rupees. It was removed from a temple; hence Section 411 assessed a fine of Rs. 200.

Possession

It is not necessary to show that the stolen goods should have come from the accused’s legitimate ownership. It must be proven that the accused kept the item in his possession with the intention of lying because he believed it to be stolen. The “possession” must be aware that the person with knowledge of the stolen thing also owned the same in order to hold him criminally accountable. It is necessary to have actual and exclusive criminal responsibility for the possession of stolen property. The superior person in a joint family is considered to have possession of all family property, therefore it cannot lead to constructive possession, which means that if one of his family members commits the crime, the supreme person cannot be held accountable for that member’s possession of stolen goods. The only person who may be held completely responsible is the one who was in actual possession of the stolen goods with malicious intent, knowledge, or reason to believe that such property had been taken. An accused person would only be responsible for the property that was taken from him; any additional property that could be connected to it would not be. It makes no difference to his guilt because the remaining property has not been recovered from him. Additionally, Section 411 does not hold someone responsible just because they are aware of where the item is. According to Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , it was not safe to assume that the accused had custody of the site where the commodities were taken or that they had been returned to his possession since it was public and widely available to anybody. The fact that the items were found on the accused is consistent with the scenario in which they were dropped off there by someone else and the accused found out where they were. The finding in this instance cannot be taken as clear evidence that the accused had these items on him or her. The Supreme Court mandated the accused’s acquittal for the grounds mentioned above.

Possession of Stolen Goods as a Result of a Dacoity 

According to Section 412, anyone who dishonestly acquires or retains any stolen property, the ownership of which has been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or who has dishonestly acquired from a person who they know or have reason to believe is a member of or has previously been a member of a gang of dacoits, a property of which they know or have reason to believe is a stolen one, shall be punished with imprisonment. The Section 412 offence is punishable by law, is cognizable, cannot be compounded, and can be tried in a Court of Session. The following requirements must be followed for someone to be held responsible under Section 412: 

• The property is stolen; 
• The property was involved in dacoity; 
• The accused obtained it dishonestly; 
• The accused knew or had reason to know that the specified item was stolen in dacoity.

According to Section 413, anybody who routinely receives or trades in stolen goods while knowing or having reason to suspect that the item is stolen faces a life sentence, a period of any type of imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine. The offence under this section is punishable by a court of session, is cognizable, not subject to bail, and cannot be compounded. The following requirements must be met for someone to be held accountable under Section 413: 

• The item in question is stolen property; 
• The accused received it; 
• The accused regularly deals in such property; 
• The person did so with knowledge or a reasonable basis to believe that the item was stolen property. 

Protection of Stolen Property and Disposal 

The concealment and disposal of stolen property are covered by Section 414. It states that anybody who knowingly assists in concealing, disposing of, or giving away goods that they know or have reason to believe is stolen property faces a sentence of up to three years in jail, a fine, or both. The property in question must be stolen property, the accused must have known or had cause to suspect that the property was stolen property, and the accused must have willingly helped conceal, dispose of, or make off with the stolen property before they can be held accountable under Section 414. The Section 414 offence is cognizable, not subject to bail, not subject to compounding, and subject to magistrate trial.

CONCLUSION

Receiving a property that a person knows to be a stolen one is a crime. Such property may have been stolen by way of theft, extortion, or by any other way. It is considered a crime because buying of such property would encourage crimes like theft, robbery etc as the person stealing such property would get money after selling the stolen property. Because accepting stolen property would encourage similar behaviour, the provision is meant to deter crimes like theft and robbery. Receiving stolen property is a crime that one commits when they acquire stolen things. There must be a dishonest motive and knowledge of or reason to think that the property being acquired is stolen in order to prove the person’s guilt.

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening