CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here is whether B can be held liable for offence of criminal misappropriation of property as defined under Section 403 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for spending the money he found belonging to B. LAW PRINCIPLE Section 403 defines criminal misappropriation of property as whoever (1) dishonestly misappropriate OR (2) convert to his own use OR (3) causes any other person to dispose of any property shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months and not more than 5 years and with whipping and shall also be liable to fine. In order to determine the criminal liability of A, he must misappropriate the property of another person or convert to his own use or cause any other person to dispose of any property. CIRCUMSTANTIAL PRINCIPLE DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION Firstly, there is misappropriation of property of another person . According to illustration (e) to section 403, A ﬁnds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of this oﬀence . In Sohan Lal v Emperor, it was stated that misappropriate means to set apart for or assign to the wrong person or a wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined under section 24 as where doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful loss and wrongful gain under section 23, is gain by unlawful means of property and person is said loss wrongfully when he is wrongfully kept out of any property. Then, in the case of Tuan Puteh v Dragon, a broader definition of misappropriation had been discover which means the retention by wrong person and the exclusion of the rightful owner. Secondly, there is conversion of property to one own use . Conversion to one’s own used means to appropriate and uses another property without right as if it is one’s own. This can be illustrated in the case of Darugappa as the accused must not merely retain the property to the physical exclusion of the real owner but also direct to his own use.

(8) criminal misappropriation of property

Download DOC Report

Upload
farouq
View
2.301
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation

Citation preview

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY

The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here is whether B can be held liable for offence of criminal misappropriation of property as defined under Section 403 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for spending the money he found belonging to B.

LAW PRINCIPLE

Section 403 defines criminal misappropriation of property as whoever (1) dishonestly misappropriate OR (2) convert to his own use OR (3) causes any other person to dispose of any property shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months and not more than 5 years and with whipping and shall also be liable to fine.

In order to determine the criminal liability of A, he must misappropriate the property of another person or convert to his own use or cause any other person to dispose of any property.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL PRINCIPLE DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION

Firstly, there is misappropriation of property of another person. According to illustration (e) to section 403, A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of this offence . In Sohan Lal v Emperor, it was stated that misappropriate means to set apart for or assign to the wrong person or a wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined under section 24 as where doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful loss and wrongful gain under section 23, is gain by unlawful means of property and person is said loss wrongfully when he is wrongfully kept out of any property.

Then, in the case of Tuan Puteh v Dragon, a broader definition of misappropriation had been discover which means the retention by wrong person and the exclusion of the rightful owner.

Secondly, there is conversion of property to one own use. Conversion to one’s own used means to appropriate and uses another property without right as if it is one’s own. This can be illustrated in the case of Darugappa as the accused must not merely retain the property to the physical exclusion of the real owner but also direct to his own use.

Then, criminal misappropriation of property also may be done by causing another person to dispose the property. STATE EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 403

APPLICATION

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, A may be held liable for offence of criminal misappropriation of property as defined under Section 403 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for spending the money he found belonging to B.