Legal provisions regarding Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of Master under section 381 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of Master:
Section 381 provides for a severe punishment when a clerk or servant has committed theft because he has greater opportunities of committing this offence owing to the confidence reposed in him.
Image Source: courthouseconcepts.barrybelford.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
An unpaid apprentice is a clerk or servant within the meaning of Section 381 of the IPC. Any theft committed by such a person comes within the ambit of Section 381.
When the possession of the stolen property is with the master, Section 381 applies, where it is with the servant, Section 408 applies.
In order to bring Section 381 into play it is necessary for the prosecution to prove not only all the essential elements of theft as defined under Section 379 but also that the accused was a clerk or servant or employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant and he has removed the movable property out of possession of his master or employer.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Vallabhram v. Emporer [AIR 1926 Bombay 122], a clerk of the tahsil office, who took official papers out of possession of his fellow clerk without consent of the concerned tahsildar to show them to an advocate of one of the parties to the case, was held guilty under Section 381.
In Juggurnath Singh v. R [(1865) 2 WR(Cr) 55], some policemen stole a sum of money shut up in a box, and placed it in the Police Treasury building, over which they were mounting guard as sentinels, they were held to have committed an offence under Section 381 and not under Section 409.
In Jayantilal Purshottamadas Patel к State of Gujarat [(1975) CrLJ 1345 (Guj)], the accused was a poor employer and was alleged to have committed theft of rolls of paper from the shop to meet the expenses to visit his sick wife at his native place.
The Court held that under these circumstances, if he was tempted to steal, it could not be treated as a very serious offence. Further the goods were restored to the owner and the accused had already lost his job. Under these circumstances, the court imposed a token time of one rupee on the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The offence under Section 381 is cognizable and warrant should, ordinarily, issue in the first instance. It is non-bailable and non- compoundable, except where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 250/-, in which case it is compoundable with the permission of the court, and is triable by any Magistrate summarily, if the property does not exceed Rs. 200/- in value.