Advertisement Remove all ads

Facts: 'Z', Going on a Journey, Entrusts His Plate to the Possession of 'A', the Keeper of a Warehouse, Till 'Z' Shall Return. Then, 'A' Carries the Plate to a Goldsmith and Sells It. - Legal Reasoning

Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Facts: 'Z', going on a journey, entrusts his plate to the possession of 'A', the keeper of a warehouse, till 'Z' shall return. Then, 'A' carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it.


  • 'A' has committed theft

  • 'A' has not committed theft

  • 'A' lawfully sold the plate to the goldsmith

  • None of the above is true

Advertisement Remove all ads


None of the above is true


Section 378 of the Indian penal code, deals with the provisions related to theft. The main constituent of the offense of theft is the intention to steal and secondly without the consent of the owner, however, in the given case Z has entrusted his plate to the possession of A with his free consent.   
So here, A has not committed the offense of theft.  But A is guilty of committing the offense of Criminal  Breach of Trust, for which the provisions are provided under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.

Concept: Criminal Law
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads

View all notifications

      Forgot password?
View in app×