The Common Law in India - College of Social Sciences and ...

134 The Common Law in IndiaOne may compare the Indian offence of theft withthe offence known in English law as larceny to whichit corresponds. The Larceny Act of 1916 gave adefinition of stealing but not a definition of larceny.The definition did not, however, make any changein the common law offence of larceny as then understood.A person " Who, without the consent of theowner, fraudulently and without a claim of rightmade in good faith, takes and carries away anythingcapable of being stolen with intent, at the time ofsuch taking, permanently to deprive the ownerthereof" was said to have stolen that thing. Aperson may under that definition be guilty of stealinga thing notwithstanding that he is lawfully in possessionof it if being a bailee or part-owner of it heconverts it to his own use. The offence of theftunder the Indian Code differs substantially from theoffence of larceny in English law. The Indian Codeemphasises the possession of the person from whomproperty is stolen, whereas the English definition isconcerned with the owner of the property. In Indiaa theft may be committed though the person fromwhom the thing is taken has no title to it, but in thecase of larceny the owner should have some generalor special ownership in it. There are other substantialdifferences also in the elements of the two offences.Yet the basic idea of the Indian offence of theft isno other than that which underlies the offence oflarceny at common law. We have the element ofthe subject-matter of the theft being somethingmovable. There is also the idea of movement orwhat is known in English law as " asportation." We