Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
IPC Section 410: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 410 defines ‘stolen property’ as any property obtained through theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust. This section provides a foundational understanding of what constitutes stolen property legally. It is essential for categorizing property involved in various crimes and understanding the legal implications of possessing, transferring, or converting such property.
Is IPC Section 410 bailable?
IPC Section 410 does not directly deal with the bailability of an offence. Still, it describes the nature of the stolen property. Bailability would depend on the specific sections under which an individual is charged about the stolen property (like possessing, concealing, or dealing with it under other sections like 411, 412, etc.).
IPC Section 410 Punishment
Since IPC Section 410 specifies what constitutes stolen property, it does not prescribe punishment. The punishment would be determined based on the specific sections that criminalize actions involving stolen property, such as receiving, retaining, or disposing of stolen property.
Example of IPC Section 410
A real-life example related to IPC Section 410 involved a person who purchased a car at a significantly lower price without proper documentation. Later, during a routine check, the police discovered that the vehicle was reported stolen in a neighbouring state. The VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) matched the records of a vehicle stolen in a high-profile burglary. Though claiming ignorance, the buyer was found to have not exercised due diligence in verifying the legitimacy of the purchase. The car was classified as ‘stolen property’ under IPC Section 410. Subsequently, the person faced legal proceedings for possessing stolen property under related sections. In court, while considering the person’s lack of direct involvement in the theft, the judge imposed a penalty for negligence in acquiring property without proper verification and mandated the return of the vehicle to its rightful owner.
