UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 5

A number of theories have been propounded to answer the question, ‘what is the purpose of punishment’, which is leaded by another question, ‘what is the end of criminal justice’, out of which some have been given more prominence. In old days the injured person was given a right to take revenge on the person causing the injury. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. In this theory the offender must be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim. In another theory, named ‘Expiatory’, it is propounded that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering the sin. The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrongdoer undergoes the punishment; it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society. The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be charged with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others. In other words, the notion of fear is the basis of this theory by which civilised behaviour by all is expected to be ensured. The well known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’ is followed by the Preventive theory, which envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, or by security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, and the like.

The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats criminal’s mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him. It does not take punishment as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It treats crime as a pathological aberration which can ordinarily be corrected by skillful treatment. A therapeutic individualised approach is the motto of this theory. The emphasis is on reform and reclamation of the offender. The growing emphasis on probation, parole and suspended sentences by the modern penology is an indication of the acceptance of this theory in the present day.

A number of theories have been propounded to answer the question, ‘what is the purpose of punishment’, which is leaded by another question, ‘what is the end of criminal justice’, out of which some have been given more prominence. In old days the injured person was given a right to take revenge on the person causing the injury. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. In this theory the offender must be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim. In another theory, named ‘Expiatory’, it is propounded that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering the sin. The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrongdoer undergoes the punishment; it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society. The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be charged with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others. In other words, the notion of fear is the basis of this theory by which civilised behaviour by all is expected to be ensured. The well known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’ is followed by the Preventive theory, which envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, or by security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, and the like.

The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats criminal’s mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him. It does not take punishment as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It treats crime as a pathological aberration which can ordinarily be corrected by skillful treatment. A therapeutic individualised approach is the motto of this theory. The emphasis is on reform and reclamation of the offender. The growing emphasis on probation, parole and suspended sentences by the modern penology is an indication of the acceptance of this theory in the present day.

A number of theories have been propounded to answer the question, ‘what is the purpose of punishment’, which is leaded by another question, ‘what is the end of criminal justice’, out of which some have been given more prominence. In old days the injured person was given a right to take revenge on the person causing the injury. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. In this theory the offender must be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim. In another theory, named ‘Expiatory’, it is propounded that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering the sin. The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrongdoer undergoes the punishment; it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society. The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be charged with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others. In other words, the notion of fear is the basis of this theory by which civilised behaviour by all is expected to be ensured. The well known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’ is followed by the Preventive theory, which envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, or by security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, and the like.

The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats criminal’s mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him. It does not take punishment as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It treats crime as a pathological aberration which can ordinarily be corrected by skillful treatment. A therapeutic individualised approach is the motto of this theory. The emphasis is on reform and reclamation of the offender. The growing emphasis on probation, parole and suspended sentences by the modern penology is an indication of the acceptance of this theory in the present day.

A number of theories have been propounded to answer the question, ‘what is the purpose of punishment’, which is leaded by another question, ‘what is the end of criminal justice’, out of which some have been given more prominence. In old days the injured person was given a right to take revenge on the person causing the injury. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. In this theory the offender must be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim. In another theory, named ‘Expiatory’, it is propounded that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering the sin. The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrongdoer undergoes the punishment; it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society. The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be charged with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others. In other words, the notion of fear is the basis of this theory by which civilised behaviour by all is expected to be ensured. The well known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’ is followed by the Preventive theory, which envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, or by security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, and the like.

The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats criminal’s mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him. It does not take punishment as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It treats crime as a pathological aberration which can ordinarily be corrected by skillful treatment. A therapeutic individualised approach is the motto of this theory. The emphasis is on reform and reclamation of the offender. The growing emphasis on probation, parole and suspended sentences by the modern penology is an indication of the acceptance of this theory in the present day.

A number of theories have been propounded to answer the question, ‘what is the purpose of punishment’, which is leaded by another question, ‘what is the end of criminal justice’, out of which some have been given more prominence. In old days the injured person was given a right to take revenge on the person causing the injury. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. In this theory the offender must be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim. In another theory, named ‘Expiatory’, it is propounded that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering the sin. The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrongdoer undergoes the punishment; it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society. The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be charged with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others. In other words, the notion of fear is the basis of this theory by which civilised behaviour by all is expected to be ensured. The well known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’ is followed by the Preventive theory, which envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, or by security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, and the like.

The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats criminal’s mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him. It does not take punishment as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It treats crime as a pathological aberration which can ordinarily be corrected by skillful treatment. A therapeutic individualised approach is the motto of this theory. The emphasis is on reform and reclamation of the offender. The growing emphasis on probation, parole and suspended sentences by the modern penology is an indication of the acceptance of this theory in the present day.

Section 378, IPC states- Theft – 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.

It is necessary for theft, the prosecution to establish in case of theft that certain movable property was taken out of the possession of person without his consent and that for the purpose of such taking the said property was moved. Another important ingredient which has to be established is that the accused had the intention to take the said property dishonestly.

The property which permanently attached to the earth is known as immovable property. And which is not attached with earth and can move from one place to another is known as movable property which is defined under section 22 of IPC. The subject matter of theft must be movable property; it must not be immovable property. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale was of the opinion that if there is a transfer of a movable property without the consent from the person in possession of the same for whatever time period it may be, temporary or permanent constitutes theft. The court added to its observation that it is not even necessary for the wrongful possessor to have the property with him during the investigation. A minor transfer of property from its original place is enough to constitute theft.

The intention is the important ingredient to perform the crime of theft. The intention must be dishonest. The intention must exist that the taker of the property intends to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. it is not necessary that the taker of property must have wrongful gain it would be sufficient if it causes wrongful loss to the property holder. The court in the case of Venkat Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh stood with the view that if in any act which is about to be considered as a theft lacks dishonest intention completely, then in such cases, theft cannot be held to have been committed. In short, the following ingredients are necessary for establishing the ‘theft’ (1) Dishonest intention to take property (2) The property must be movable (3) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person (4) The property should be taken without the consent of that person (5) The property must be removed from original possession. Therefore the crime of theft will be completed. A person can be held guilty of committing theft of his own property under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For example; A gives a piece of cloth to B, a tailor for making a suit for him. B demanded his making charge to A but a refuses and take away his suits without the consent of B, here A is guilty of theft because it takes his own suits without paying the stitching charges.

Section 378, IPC states- Theft – 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.

It is necessary for theft, the prosecution to establish in case of theft that certain movable property was taken out of the possession of person without his consent and that for the purpose of such taking the said property was moved. Another important ingredient which has to be established is that the accused had the intention to take the said property dishonestly.

The property which permanently attached to the earth is known as immovable property. And which is not attached with earth and can move from one place to another is known as movable property which is defined under section 22 of IPC. The subject matter of theft must be movable property; it must not be immovable property. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale was of the opinion that if there is a transfer of a movable property without the consent from the person in possession of the same for whatever time period it may be, temporary or permanent constitutes theft. The court added to its observation that it is not even necessary for the wrongful possessor to have the property with him during the investigation. A minor transfer of property from its original place is enough to constitute theft.

The intention is the important ingredient to perform the crime of theft. The intention must be dishonest. The intention must exist that the taker of the property intends to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. it is not necessary that the taker of property must have wrongful gain it would be sufficient if it causes wrongful loss to the property holder. The court in the case of Venkat Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh stood with the view that if in any act which is about to be considered as a theft lacks dishonest intention completely, then in such cases, theft cannot be held to have been committed. In short, the following ingredients are necessary for establishing the ‘theft’ (1) Dishonest intention to take property (2) The property must be movable (3) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person (4) The property should be taken without the consent of that person (5) The property must be removed from original possession. Therefore the crime of theft will be completed. A person can be held guilty of committing theft of his own property under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For example; A gives a piece of cloth to B, a tailor for making a suit for him. B demanded his making charge to A but a refuses and take away his suits without the consent of B, here A is guilty of theft because it takes his own suits without paying the stitching charges.

Section 378, IPC states- Theft – 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.

It is necessary for theft, the prosecution to establish in case of theft that certain movable property was taken out of the possession of person without his consent and that for the purpose of such taking the said property was moved. Another important ingredient which has to be established is that the accused had the intention to take the said property dishonestly.

The property which permanently attached to the earth is known as immovable property. And which is not attached with earth and can move from one place to another is known as movable property which is defined under section 22 of IPC. The subject matter of theft must be movable property; it must not be immovable property. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale was of the opinion that if there is a transfer of a movable property without the consent from the person in possession of the same for whatever time period it may be, temporary or permanent constitutes theft. The court added to its observation that it is not even necessary for the wrongful possessor to have the property with him during the investigation. A minor transfer of property from its original place is enough to constitute theft.

The intention is the important ingredient to perform the crime of theft. The intention must be dishonest. The intention must exist that the taker of the property intends to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. it is not necessary that the taker of property must have wrongful gain it would be sufficient if it causes wrongful loss to the property holder. The court in the case of Venkat Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh stood with the view that if in any act which is about to be considered as a theft lacks dishonest intention completely, then in such cases, theft cannot be held to have been committed. In short, the following ingredients are necessary for establishing the ‘theft’ (1) Dishonest intention to take property (2) The property must be movable (3) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person (4) The property should be taken without the consent of that person (5) The property must be removed from original possession. Therefore the crime of theft will be completed. A person can be held guilty of committing theft of his own property under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For example; A gives a piece of cloth to B, a tailor for making a suit for him. B demanded his making charge to A but a refuses and take away his suits without the consent of B, here A is guilty of theft because it takes his own suits without paying the stitching charges.

Section 378, IPC states- Theft – 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.

It is necessary for theft, the prosecution to establish in case of theft that certain movable property was taken out of the possession of person without his consent and that for the purpose of such taking the said property was moved. Another important ingredient which has to be established is that the accused had the intention to take the said property dishonestly.

The property which permanently attached to the earth is known as immovable property. And which is not attached with earth and can move from one place to another is known as movable property which is defined under section 22 of IPC. The subject matter of theft must be movable property; it must not be immovable property. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale was of the opinion that if there is a transfer of a movable property without the consent from the person in possession of the same for whatever time period it may be, temporary or permanent constitutes theft. The court added to its observation that it is not even necessary for the wrongful possessor to have the property with him during the investigation. A minor transfer of property from its original place is enough to constitute theft.

The intention is the important ingredient to perform the crime of theft. The intention must be dishonest. The intention must exist that the taker of the property intends to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. it is not necessary that the taker of property must have wrongful gain it would be sufficient if it causes wrongful loss to the property holder. The court in the case of Venkat Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh stood with the view that if in any act which is about to be considered as a theft lacks dishonest intention completely, then in such cases, theft cannot be held to have been committed. In short, the following ingredients are necessary for establishing the ‘theft’ (1) Dishonest intention to take property (2) The property must be movable (3) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person (4) The property should be taken without the consent of that person (5) The property must be removed from original possession. Therefore the crime of theft will be completed. A person can be held guilty of committing theft of his own property under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For example; A gives a piece of cloth to B, a tailor for making a suit for him. B demanded his making charge to A but a refuses and take away his suits without the consent of B, here A is guilty of theft because it takes his own suits without paying the stitching charges.

Section 378, IPC states- Theft – 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.

It is necessary for theft, the prosecution to establish in case of theft that certain movable property was taken out of the possession of person without his consent and that for the purpose of such taking the said property was moved. Another important ingredient which has to be established is that the accused had the intention to take the said property dishonestly.

The property which permanently attached to the earth is known as immovable property. And which is not attached with earth and can move from one place to another is known as movable property which is defined under section 22 of IPC. The subject matter of theft must be movable property; it must not be immovable property. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale was of the opinion that if there is a transfer of a movable property without the consent from the person in possession of the same for whatever time period it may be, temporary or permanent constitutes theft. The court added to its observation that it is not even necessary for the wrongful possessor to have the property with him during the investigation. A minor transfer of property from its original place is enough to constitute theft.

The intention is the important ingredient to perform the crime of theft. The intention must be dishonest. The intention must exist that the taker of the property intends to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. it is not necessary that the taker of property must have wrongful gain it would be sufficient if it causes wrongful loss to the property holder. The court in the case of Venkat Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh stood with the view that if in any act which is about to be considered as a theft lacks dishonest intention completely, then in such cases, theft cannot be held to have been committed. In short, the following ingredients are necessary for establishing the ‘theft’ (1) Dishonest intention to take property (2) The property must be movable (3) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person (4) The property should be taken without the consent of that person (5) The property must be removed from original possession. Therefore the crime of theft will be completed. A person can be held guilty of committing theft of his own property under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For example; A gives a piece of cloth to B, a tailor for making a suit for him. B demanded his making charge to A but a refuses and take away his suits without the consent of B, here A is guilty of theft because it takes his own suits without paying the stitching charges.