CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION

Explain in detail the concept of Criminal Misappropriation given under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Article 300- A of the Indian Constitution provides the constitutional right of property. According to this article, every person has right to acquire and own the property. If any person owns any property, so it does not mean that he has acquired only right of ownership but alongwith this right he also acquires the right of possession i.e., right to peaceful enjoyment of the property. According to this right, no person has right to interfere into this right of another person and if any person tries to interfere into this right of another person, then in such a case, an aggrieved person can initiate legal proceedings against the wrongdoer and claim remedy from him.

Section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the provisions of Criminal Misappropriation and this section gives a right to an aggrieved person to initiate legal proceedings against the accused person. According to section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, if any person dishonestly misappropriates the property of another person or converts to his own use the property of another person, then in such a case, the accused will be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal misappropriation given under section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the leading case of Ramaswami Nadavs State of Madras (SC 1957), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to held the accused liable for having committed the offence of criminal misappropriation, there must be conversion of someone’s property for his own use by the accused. A word ‘converts to his own use’ connotes the usage or deals with the property of another person in derogation of his rights.

According to section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, to held the accused liable for having committed the offence of Criminal Misappropriation, it is necessary to prove that the accused has misappropriated the property of another person dishonestly. In this section the term ‘Dishonestly’ plays a very crucial role.

Section 24 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the provisions of term ‘Dishonestly’. According to this section, if any person commits any act with an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or to cause wrongful loss to another person, then in such a case, it will be considered that he has committed the act dishonestly.

So, if an accused misappropriates the property of another person with an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or to cause wrongful loss to another person, then in such a case, that accused will be held liable for having committed the offence of Criminal Misappropriation.

According to section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, to establish the offence of Criminal Misappropriation, the below mentioned ingredients must be satisfied by the prosecution: –

1. An accused must misappropriate or converts to his own use the property of another person
2. An accused must misappropriate the property dishonestly
3. The property must be movable in nature
4. That movable property must belong to another person

If all these ingredients are fulfilled by the prosecution, then only an accused can be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal misappropriation given under section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, to held the accused liable for having committed the offence of criminal misappropriation, it is necessary to prove that initially the possession of disputed movable property was taken by the accused without any dishonest intention but after getting the possession of the concerned movable property, he misappropriated that property dishonestly. The main reason behind this is that if it is proved that the dishonest intention of the accused was existed initially then in such a case, he will be held liable for having committed the offence of theft given under section 378 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In case of theft, the accused takes the property out of the possession of another person without his consent and with a dishonest intention. So, it is clear that in case of theft, dishonest intention exists initially whereas in case of criminal misappropriation, dishonest intention does not exist initially. The accused gets the possession of movable property without the dishonest intention but after getting the possession if he dishonestly misappropriates the property, then he can be held liable for having committed the offence given under section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, in case of theft, an accused himself takes the possession of movable property but in case of criminal misappropriation, the possession of movable property is generally given by the owner.