. Amending Act of 1927. In order to prove the offence referred to in Article 379 of the CPI, Article 378 is accompanied by five explanations to explain when an act is equivalent to theft. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code states: “Anyone who commits theft shall be punished by deprivation of liberty of both types for a custodial sentence of up to three years, or a fine or both.” . . . For the purposes of this section, there are also some examples. Theft of electricity is not theft of movable property within the meaning of § 378 IPC. However, it is punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 (pdf). On the other hand, boiling gas or water flowing through the pipeline can be stolen if the defendant has attached a pipe in the main line just before the meter to avoid payment. Idols of temples, paintings of museums and other public or private places are stolen. CONSIDERING that a general penal code should be provided for Bangladesh, it is adopted as follows:-.
Article 378 defines the offence of theft, while Article 379 of the ICC prescribes a penalty for theft. Theft within the meaning of section 378 is the dishonest removal and removal of movable property from the possession of a person without his or her consent. It is a crime against possession, not possession. For the commission of the offence of theft, intent plays a major role here. For example, if a person takes movable property from the possession of another person without his consent, it is said that the person commits the crime of theft and is punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. . Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937 Criminal Law (Extinguishment of Discriminatory Privileges Act, 1949). The Law Of Bangladesh Law Review and Declaration Act, 1973 and the Banknote Forgery Act, 1899. The human body, whether alive or dead (with the exception of mummified corpses or kept in scientific institutions or medical schools), is not subject to theft. To justify the criminal offense of theft, the following are necessary: For a better understanding of IPC 379 and nonsense, we can take the example of how – person X, tears the seat covers while traveling on the bus when the driver demands a fare. Here, person X is guilty of committing mischief.
The reason for paying for the bus ticket was the implied consent of the person when they boarded the bus. If you do not pay the fare and damage property that causes harm to another person, the person is responsible for the mischief, not the theft. Election Offences and Investigations Act, 1920. . The second important thing in cases of theft is that the stolen property must be movable property. Theft is complete when an item is removed from a person`s possession without their consent. Theft and mischief are also two different concepts. The essential difference between theft and mischief is that when one person commits mischief, he only inflicts harm on another, but gains nothing for himself. Whereas in the case of theft, a person makes a dishonest gain in assets at the expense of the victim.
Workers` Restorling Act of 1925 (Gesetz Nr. III von 1925). . . .