MODULE 5

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

 A property can be divided into two parts; movable property and
immovable property.
 Any offences committed related to the property whether movable
or immovable will be punishable under the provisions of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
 Provisions for offences relating to the property have been
enumerated under Section 303 – Section 350 of this Act.

THEFT:
It is defined under Section 303 of BNS.

It states that any person with a dishonest intention to take any movable
property out of the possession of a person without the person’s
consent to whom it belongs move that property is said to commit theft.

MAIN ESSENTIALS:
 Dishonest Intention.
 Taking of movable property.
 Out of possession of another person.
 Without such person’s consent.
 Moving the property in order to take it away.

ILLUSTRATION:
A visits B’s house and finds a ring on his table. He takes it away out of
Z’s house without Z’s consent. A has committed theft.
Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan
The accused took a file from an office and returned it later. The
Supreme Court ruled that theft was committed as the act involved
dishonestly removing the file from the owner's possession.

K.N. Mehra v. the State of Rajasthan

The accused took an aircraft for a joyride without permission and
returned it. The Supreme Court held that this constituted theft, as the
intention to temporarily deprive the owner of possession was sufficient.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 305 of BNS states that whoever commits theft shall be
punished with 7 years of imprisonment or fine or with both.

EXTORTION:
It is defined under Section 308 of the BNS.

It states that whoever intentionally puts any other person in fear of

injury to him, or to any other person, and dishonestly induces him by
putting him in fear to deliver any property or any valuable thing is said
to commit extortion.

MAIN ESSENTIALS:
 Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury.
 Dishonestly inducement
 To deliver any person his property (movable or immovable
property), valuable security to another person.
ILLUSTRATION: A threatens to kill Z’s son unless he delivers his
property to A. He thus induces Z to transfer his property to A. A has
committed extortion.

Dhananjay v. State of Bihar

The court held that to constitute extortion, one must fulfil these
ingredients:

 Accused must put any person in fear of injury;

 Intentionally person was put in fear by the accused;
 The inducement was on the part of the accused to deliver the
property;
 Inducement should be made dishonestly.

P. Govindaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

The accused extorted valuables from a victim by threatening to cause
injury to their reputation. The court held that reputational threats also
qualify as "fear of injury."

PUNISHMENT:
Section 308(2) states that whoever commits extortion shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description or which may extend
up to 7 years or with fine or with both.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF EXTORTION:

Section 308(5) of BNS deals with any person who commits extortion by
putting in fear of death or of grievous hurt to him or any other person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may
extend ten years and shall be liable with fine also.
Section 308(4) of BNS deals with any person who attempts to extort a
person by putting him in fear of death or of grievous hurt is enough. It
is not necessary that the actual commission of extortion takes place.
Punishment under this is imprisonment of seven years and shall also
be liable to fine.

Section 308(7) of BNS deals with any person who commits extortion by
way of threat of accusation to a person, shall be punished with death,
or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend
to ten years, or have attempted to induce any other person to commit
extortion, shall be punished with imprisonment of ten years, or shall
also be liable to fine.

Section 308(6) of BNS states that any person who attempts to extort to
a person by putting him in fear of accusation of offence. No actual
commission of extortion takes place. Punishment under this is death or
imprisonment for life or, imprisonment which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine.

Sanjay Goel v. State

The court ruled that even implied threats could constitute extortion if
they generate fear leading to consent to part with property.

THEFT EXTORTION
In theft, property taken out without In extortion, the consent of the
consent of the owner. owner is obtained but wrongfully.
Theft may be only in respect of In Extortion, the property may be
movable Property. either movable or immovable.

There is no delivery of property by There is delivery of property by the

owner. owner.

There is no element of force. Property is obtained by putting a

person in fear of injury and thereby
inducing him to part with his
property.

ROBBERY:
Section 309 defines about robbery. It states that in all robbery there is
either theft or extortion.

It means that a wrongful act of taking the personal property of another

from a person or immediate presence against his will accomplished by
using force and fear, with the intention of permanently depriving the
owner of the thing.

ESSENTIALS:

 Theft or extortion
 Causing/attempting death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
 Putting in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Kerala

The accused assaulted the victim and forcibly took possession of their
belongings. The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing
that when force is used to seize property, it constitutes robbery under
Section 309 of BNS.

WHEN THEFT IS ROBBERY?

A robbery takes place when, while committing theft or moving
property, the offender does any of these acts:

 When any person voluntarily causes or makes an attempt to cause

death, hurt or wrongful restraint to any person;
 When any person voluntarily causes or makes an attempt to cause
fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint to any person.

Illustration: A finds jewels in B’s house. A holds B and takes that

jewels fraudulently without B’s consent. Here A commits theft and in
order to commit robbery, A wrongfully restraints B. Here A commits
robbery.

WHEN EXTORTION IS ROBBERY?

Extortion becomes robbery when the offender does any of these acts:

 Whoever commits extortion and puts a person in a fear of instant

death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
 The offender induces a person and puts him in fear to deliver the
property;
 The offender puts a person in fear at the time of extortion.

Illustration: B meets C on the highway, and shows a pistol towards B,

and demands B’s purse. B surrenders her purse. Here, C committed
extortion in addition to it putting B in fear of instant death C committed
robbery also.
PUNISHMENT:
According to Section 309(4) states that whoever commits robbery shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 10 years
and also involves fine.

This punishment extends up to fourteen years if the offender commits

robbery on highways between the sunset and sunrise.

For attempting to commit robbery, the punishment is rigorous

imprisonment of 7 years and fine also.

Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana

During a robbery, the accused severely injured the victim while forcibly
taking possession of valuables. The Supreme Court found the accused
guilty under Sections 309(4) & (6) of BNS, which deal with robbery with
hurt.

DACOITY:
 Section 310 of BNS states that when five or more persons
conjointly commits or attempts to commit robbery, it is said to be
dacoity.
 Group of people which is five or more than five in number makes
an attempt to commit robbery or aids in committing or attempting
a robbery, is said to commit dacoity.

ESSENTIALS:
 The involvement of a person should be five or more than it, as an
accused.
  An attempt to commit offence or commission of an offence
should be conjoint.

PUNISHMENT:
Whoever commits dacoity will be liable for punishment includes life
imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 10 years
and fine also.

Ashfaq v. State
The accused, armed with weapons, participated in a dacoity at a house.
During the offense, the group injured the victims. The Supreme Court
upheld the conviction under Sections 310(2) and 311, emphasizing that
even intimidation with weapons constitutes dacoity.

Ram Avtar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

A group of individuals committed a robbery, and during the crime, one
member inflicted fatal injuries on the victim. The court convicted the
group under Section 310(3) (dacoity with murder).

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF DACOITY:

Section 310(3) states that if one person commits murder in dacoity, all
of them will be liable for murder and shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine
also.

Section 310(4) states that whoever makes any preparation for

committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for
10 years and fine also.
Section 310(5) states that whoever assembles for the purpose of
committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for 7
years and fine also.

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY:

MEANING OF MISAPPROPRIATION:
The word misappropriation means a dishonest appropriation and use of
another person’s property for one’s own use.

1. DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY:

Section 314 of BNS states that any person who dishonestly
misappropriated any movable property or converts any movable
property for his own use will be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 2 years, or fine, or with both.

Chettiar v. Visvanath
The accused, who was given a sum of money to purchase a property,
used it for personal expenses. The Madras High Court held that the act
constituted misappropriation, as the accused dishonestly converted
property entrusted to him for his own use, which goes against the trust
imposed by the complainant.

P. Sulochana v. State of Tamil Nadu

The accused, a government official, was alleged to have
misappropriated funds meant for welfare schemes. The court found
that the accused's actions constituted criminal misappropriation due to
the breach of trust and wrongful conversion of government funds for
personal gain.
ESSENTIALS:
 Dishonest misappropriation of a property should be done.
 Such property must be movable.
 Such property should belong to the complainant.

ILLUSTRATION: Y takes property belonging to X, out of X’s possession,

in good faith believing that property belongs to him. Y is not guilty of
theft. But as soon as Y discovers that property doesn’t belong to him
and dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use. Y is guilty of
an offence of dishonest misappropriation of a property.

FINDER OF GOODS:
Any person who finds the goods and at that time the intention was not
dishonest at the time of possession of goods, mere change in the
thought does not make that possession illegal. Finder of goods can take
possession of those goods if he has taken all the necessary steps to find
the real owner of the goods. He can use it for himself if the true owner
is not found by him.

2. DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY POSSESSED

BY DECEASED PERSON AT THE TIME OF IS DEATH:
Section 315 of BNS states that any person dishonestly misappropriated
or converts it to own use any deceased person’s property knowing that
property was in the possession of the deceased person at the time of
his decease used by him, and also not been in the possession of any
legal heir of that person who is legally entitled to get that property’s
possession. That person will be punished with imprisonment described
which may extend to three years, and also liable to fine and also if that
offender was a servant or a clerk at the time of such person’s disease,
will be liable to seven years of imprisonment.

ESSENTIALS:
 The property must be movable.
 Property should be in possession of a deceased at the time of his
death.
 Misappropriation of the property done by accused.
 Dishonestly done by the accused.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST:

Section 316 of BNS states that any person dishonestly misusing or
converting property that is entrusted to someone, or violating a legal
contract or direction of law within the prescribed manner which is
made for the discharge of trust, is said to commit criminal breach of
trust.

ESSENTIALS:
 Entrustment of property by one person to another.
 The offender misappropriates or converts the property for its own
use.
 Any violation of direction or any law prescribed by the law for
discharging the trust.
 The property must be dishonestly converted or misappropriated.

ILLUSTRATION: Y is the executor of the will of a deceased person.

While executing a will, Y dishonestly disobeys the law, which directs
him to divide the share equally, and Y fraudulently takes some part of
the property. Here, Y commits criminal breach of trust.
Shiva Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that a minister holds the position of a trustee
in respect of public property; it is his duty to deal in a just and fair
manner with people’s property. And if he fails to do so, he will be liable
for criminal breach of trust.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 316(2) of BNS any person who commits criminal breach of trust
shall be punished with imprisonment either description for a term
which may extend up to 5 years, or with fine, or with both.

Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana

The accused, entrusted with certain goods, failed to account for them,
leading to allegations of criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court
emphasized that for criminal breach of trust to be established, mere
failure to return property is insufficient. It must be shown that the
accused acted dishonestly, intending to misappropriate or convert the
entrusted property.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY:

 Section 317 of BNS defines about stolen property
 It states that a person having any property whose possession has
been transferred through theft, extortion or robbery and that
property has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of
which criminal breach of trust has been committed will be
considered as stolen property.
  Transfer of property has been done, or property’s
misappropriation has been done, or breach of trust has been
committed, within India or without India.
 Any property comes in the possession of a legal person legally
entitled to it, which ceases to be stolen property.

Gulab Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The accused purchased goods from someone suspected of theft and
resold them. The court highlighted that for conviction under Section
317(2), the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or had
reason to believe that the property was stolen. In the absence of such
knowledge, a person cannot be held liable.

ESSENTIALS:
 The property must be stolen property.
 It is not necessary that misappropriation or breach of trust done
within or without India;
 Such property comes in the possession of a legal person legally
entitled to it, which ceases to be stolen property.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 317(2) of BNS states that any person dishonestly receives or
retains the stolen property, knowing that it is a stolen property or
having a reason to believe it to be stolen property, will be imprisoned
for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The accused was found with stolen property, but there was a
considerable delay in its recovery. The Supreme Court stated that a
delay in recovery weakens the presumption of guilt based on
possession, especially when no other evidence links the accused to the
theft. The time gap between the theft and the recovery of property is
crucial.

CHEATING:
 Section 318 of BNS defines about Cheating.
 It states that whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the
person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
cheat.
 It states that any person who has fraudulent or dishonest
intentions at the time of making a promise with an intention to
retain the property is guilty of cheating.

ESSENTIALS:
 Deception: It means to deceive any person by making him
believe what is not true or to mislead him through words or
conduct.
 Dishonest intention: Any person who deceives must dishonestly,
to do wrongful loss and to have a wrongful gain or fraudulently
intention to injure unascertained property or person induce any
person to deliver any property or to do some act which the
person so deceived otherwise would not have done.
  Causes Damage: There should be harm, damage to the mind,
body, property or reputation of the person so deceived and not to
any other person.

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar

The accused gained admission to a university by submitting false
qualifications. The Supreme Court held that presenting false documents
to obtain a benefit amounts to cheating.

Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

The accused fraudulently created false documents to claim ownership
of land. The Supreme Court ruled that forging documents to mislead a
person amounts to cheating and forgery.

ILLUSTRATION:
Z by misrepresenting diamonds to Y, which Z knows they are not real
diamonds, intentionally deceives Y, and dishonestly induces Y. Here, Z
cheats.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 318(2) of BNS states that any person who is guilty of cheating
will be punished with the imprisonment of either description which
may extend to 3 years, or fine, or with both.

CHEATING AND DISHONESTLY INDUCING DELIVERY OF

PROPERTY:
Section 318(4) of BNS deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property
It states that an offence which is committed by a person by cheating
another person and inducing him to deliver his property to the offender
or to make it alter, or to destroy the whole or any part of the valuable
security, and anything which is signed or sealed and can convert into a
valuable property, that person shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description which may extend to 7 years and fine also.

Sushil Kumar Datta v. State of West Bengal

The accused project himself as he belongs to Schedule Caste candidate
at an IAS examination and got selected in the exam and appointment of
him has been done due to false representation. The Court held that
conviction under Section 318(4) is justified and the accused held liable.

CHEATING BY PERSONATION:
Section 319 of BNS defines cheating by personation

It states that a person cheats by pretending to be some other person,

or knowingly substituting another person and pretending to be that
other person or representing that other person, said to be cheating by
personation.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 319(2) of BNS states that any person who is guilty of cheating
by personation will be punished with the imprisonment of either
description which may extend to 3 years, or fine, or with both.

MISCHIEF:
 Section 324 of BNS defines about Mischief.
  It states that a person commits mischief if he causes destruction
of property knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or
damage to the public or any person even if an intention to cause
that damage is not made out.

ESSENTIALS:
 Intention or knowledge should be there to cause wrongful loss to
the public.
 Destructing any property.
 The destruction which is causing diminishes in its value (wrongful
loss).

Sri Ram v. State of U.P

The accused destroyed irrigation equipment, depriving the complainant
of water. The court held that the act of damaging property
intentionally, causing wrongful loss, constituted mischief.

B.N. Singh v. State of U.P

The accused damaged a neighbor's property in a dispute. The court
ruled that intentional damage to another's property, even during a
dispute, qualifies as mischief.

ILLUSTRATION:
C voluntarily throws D’s necklace into the sea with the intention to
cause wrongful loss to the D. Here, C commits mischief.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 324(2) of BNS states that any person who commits mischief
shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description which
may extend to 6 months, or fine, or with both.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF MISCHIEF:

 Section 324(4) states that if someone commits mischief and
causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees
and more but less than one lakh rupees shall be punished with
imprisoned for 2 years, with a fine, or both.
 Section 324(5) states that if someone commits mischief and
causes loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or more
shall be punished with imprisoned for 5 years, with a fine, or
both.
 Section 325 deals with mischief committed by killing, poisoning,
maiming, or rendering useless any animal shall be punished with
imprisonment for 5 years, a fine, or both.
 Section 326(a) states that any mischief by causing damage to
agricultural works, rendering them useless, or wrongfully
diverting them shall be punished with imprisonment for 5 years,
a fine, or both.
 Section 326(b) states that any mischief by causing damage to any
public road, bridge, navigable river, or channel shall be punished
with imprisonment for 5 years, a fine, or both.
 Section 326(c) states any mischief that cause obstruction to any
public drainage, causing injury or damage shall be punished with
imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine, or both.
  Section 326(d) states any mischief by destroying or moving any
landmark fixed by the authority of a public servant shall be
punished with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.

CRIMINAL TREPASS:
MEANING:
 Any person unlawfully entering the private property of another
person or without his prior permission either implied or express,
is said to commit criminal trespass.
 In India, it is a civil wrong and for causing damages compensation
is given.
 But in IPC criminal trespass is considered as a criminal offence and
punishable under Section 329 of BNS.

Section 329 states that an unlawful entry made by a person into a

private property of another person, with an intention to commit an
offence or to intimidate that person or to annoy or insult the person in
whose possession the property is.

An entry taken by the person was legal but he unlawfully remains there
with an intention to insult or annoy or intimidate that person and is
said to commit criminal trespass.

ESSENTIALS:
 There should be an unauthorised entry on the property of
another person.
 An entry which was made should be authorised but unlawfully
remaining in the premises.
 Unlawful stay must be with an intention
Varghese v. State of Kerala
The accused entered the complainant's land to intimidate them. The
court held that entering someone else's property with the intent to
intimidate constitutes criminal trespass.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 329(c) states that any person who commits criminal trespass
will be punished with the imprisonment of either description which
may extend to three months, or with fine of Rs.5,000/-, or with both.

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The accused entered the complainant's house to steal. The court
convicted the accused of criminal trespass, as the intent to commit
theft was evident.

HOUSE TRESPASS:
 Section 329(b) of BNS deals with House trespass:
 It states that any person who commits criminal trespass while
entering or remaining into a building or a tent, and that place
used as a human dwelling or a building as a place of worship or
any place used as custody of a property, is said to commit house-
trespass.

Chacko v. State of Kerala

The accused entered the complainant’s house with an intention to
commit theft. The Kerala High Court held that entry into a house with
the intent to commit an offense fulfills the definition of house trespass
under Section 329.
ESSENTIALS:
 There should be an unauthorized entry on the property of
another person;
 An entry which was made should be authorized but unlawfully
remaining in the premises;
 Unlawful stay must be with an intention;
 The property on which persons enter should be used as a human
dwelling or a place of worship or place of custody of property.

PUNISHMENT:
 Section 329(d) states that Any person who commits house-
trespass will be punished with the imprisonment of either
description which may extend to one year, or with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, or with both.
 Section 332(a) & (b) states that whoever commits house-trespass
in order to the committing of any offence shall be punished with
death or imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for
10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
 Section 332(c) states that whoever commits house-trespass in
order to the committing of any offence shall be punished with
imprisonment for 2 years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of
imprisonment may be extended to 7 years.

K.K. Palani v. State of Tamil Nadu

The accused entered the complainant's house with the intent to
assault. The court convicted the accused under Section 448 for house
trespass.
Section 333 states that whoever commits house-trespass, having made
preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person,
or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in
fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS

FORGERY:
Section 336 states that whoever makes any fake document or incorrect
electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the
public or to any person, or to cause any person to share with property,
or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with purpose to
commit fraud is known as forgery.

ESSENTIALS:
Section 335 states that a person is said to make a false document or
false electronic record:-

(A) Who dishonestly or fraudulently -

 Makes sign, seal or performs a document or part of a document.

 Makes or transmits any electronic record.
 Affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record.
 Makes any mark indicating the execution of a document.

(B) Who without legal authority dishonestly or fraudulently by

withdrawing or cancellation or alters a document or an electronic
record.
(C) Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to seal, sign,
execute or reconstruct a document knowing that the person is
unsoundness of mind or intoxication.

ILLUSTRATION: X picks up a cheque on a banker signed by Y, payable

to bearer but without any sum having been inserted in the cheque. X
fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand
rupees. X commits forgery.

R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta

The accused allegedly forged documents to enter into a fraudulent
contract. The Supreme Court stated that a charge of forgery requires
not only creating or altering a document but also an intention to
deceive or cause harm.

Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla

The accused created false documents to fraudulently transfer property
rights. The Supreme Court held that creating documents with intent to
deceive the rightful owner or obtain unlawful gains constitutes forgery.

THREE FORMS OF MAKING FALSE DOCUMENT:

Copied forgery: In this variety of forgery, the forger chooses a model
signature or writing and tries to replicate the design of letters and other
broad features depending upon his ability, practice, and competency.

Traced forgery: This means reproducing the exact copy of the original
signature. Traced forgery is accomplished by using carbon paper,
tracing paper or scanned image.
Forgery by impersonation: When a person nearly writes or signs the
name of another person in his own handwriting in a normal manner.

Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana

The accused forged signatures to encash a cheque. The Supreme Court
held that signing on behalf of another person without their permission,
especially for financial gain, constitutes forgery.

INTENTION OF THE FORGER:

Section 336(3) states that whoever commits forgery intending that the
document or electronic record forged is used for the purpose of
cheating shall be punished with imprisonment for 7 years and fine.

PUNISHMENT:
Section 336(2) states that whoever commits forgery shall be punished
with imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both.

Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

The accused fraudulently created false documents to claim ownership
of land. The Supreme Court ruled that forging documents to mislead a
person amounts to cheating and forgery.

FORGERY OF RECORD OF COURT OR OF PUBLIC REGISTER:

Section 337 states that whoever forges a document or an electronic
record, purporting to be a record or proceeding in a Court or an identity
document issued by Government including voter identity card or
Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, marriage or burial, or a register
kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document
purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

FORGERY OF VALUABLE SECURITY OR WILL:

Section 338 states that whoever forges a document which implies to be
a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which
implies to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable
security or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon or to
receive or transfer any money, movable property, or valuable security
shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

USING FORGED DOCUMENTS AS GENUINE:

Section 340 states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly accepts as
the genuine document which he knows or has ground to believe to be a
forged document, shall be punished in the corresponding manner as if
he had forged such document.

PROPERTY MARK:
Section 345(1) states that a sign or mark used for identifying that
movable property belongs to a particular person is called a property
mark.

FALSE PROPERTY MARK:

Section 345(2) states that whoever marks any movable property or
goods or any package to make it believe as if it belongs to someone
other than the actual owner is known as false property mark.

PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE PROPERTY MARK:

Section 345(3) states that anyone using a false property mark shall be
punished with imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine, or both.

Lalit Kumar v. Union of India

The accused was accused of using false property marks on food
packaging to mislead customers. The Delhi High Court held that using
false or counterfeit property marks on consumable goods constitutes
an offense under Section 345(3), as it misleads consumers.

Section 346 states that whoever knowingly removes, destroys, defaces,

or adds to any property mark shall be punishable with the
imprisonment for 1 year or fine or both.

Section 347 states that whoever counterfeits (copied) any property

mark used by any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of
2 years or fine or both.

K. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

The accused counterfeited property marks on packaged goods,
resulting in consumer complaints. The Kerala High Court ruled that
counterfeiting property marks with the intent to mislead or defraud
customers violates Sections 345 and 347.