‘Information contained in a document is a ‘Corporeal Property’ and can be a subject matter of theft’

Yukti Gupta | Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies | 11th April 2020

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS^[1] AIR 2019 SC 2390

FACTS- 

• The accused filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court seeking to quash the summons issued in a case filed against them for the theft of fifty- four documents and using them in judicial proceedings. 
• The High Court held that the Magistrate did not commit any error on the procedural aspect as he was satisfied himself that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused upon perusal of the averments made in the complaint and statements made therein. 
• Regarding the documents, the High Court held that the complaint would not survive in respect of the documents No.1 to 28 as the originals were still in the custody of the Complainant, taking away the information contained in such documents cannot be considered to be a movable property and the temporary removal of the documents for taking away the contents by photocopying them, by itself cannot be subject of the offence of theft or dishonest appropriation of property.
• For documents No. 20 to 54, the High Court held that the Complainant could not proceed against the Respondents as the originals of these documents were missing and the Complaint disclosed ingredients of the offence of theft. Thus, the matter was remitted to the trial court accordingly.
• Aggrieved by the said High Court order, both the accused and complainant approached the Apex Court in respect of unfavourable parts of the order.

ISSUE–

Whether the High Court rightly quashed the criminal proceedings for documents No. 1 to 28 on the ground that mere information contained in the documents could not be considered as “moveable property” and not be the subject for the offence of theft or receipt of stolen property. 

OBSERVATION

• The most important component for the offence of theft is that the subject matter should be a “Moveable property” which is defined under Section 22 IPC and includes a corporeal property of every description. 
• A document is a “corporeal property” within the meaning of Section 22 IPC. A thing is corporeal if it has a body, material and physical presence. Section 29 IPC defined “Document” as “any matter expressed or described upon any substance using letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used as evidence of that matter.” The first Explanation to Section 29 IPC states that it is immaterial by what means or upon what substance these are formed. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the said information would be deemed to fall within the purview of ‘document’ which itself is a “moveable property” and include within its ambit photocopy of a document. 
• The intention is the gist of the offence which must determine whether taking or moving a thing is theft. The intention to take dishonestly exists when the taker intends to cause wrongful loss to any other which amounts to theft. The essential ingredient of the offence of theft is that the moveable property should have been moved out of the possession of any person without his consent.

DECISION

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the documents, its replication and the contents thereon have a physical presence. Therefore, a ‘Corporeal Property’ and the subject matter of theft.  
• The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the criminal case against the accused concerning documents was set aside as the case could not be made out for the offences under Section 380, 411 and 120B. 
• The use of documents by the accused in judicial proceedings pending between the parties would not amount to theft as the essential ingredients to attract Section 378 and 380 IPC were not present.
• The High Court Order concerning document No 28 to 54 was set aside.

^[1] MANU/SC/0714/2019