IPC Section 27 – Property In Possession Of Wife, Clerk, Or Servant

In criminal law, possession plays a crucial role in determining liability, especially in offences related to stolen or misappropriated property. But what happens when the accused doesn’t directly hold the stolen goods, and instead passes them to someone close, like a wife, clerk, or servant? That’s where IPC Section 27 becomes important. This provision ensures that constructive possession is also recognised under law, and prevents offenders from escaping liability by keeping property in someone else’s hands.

In this blog, we will explore:

• The legal meaning and scope of IPC Section 27
• How it extends liability beyond actual possession
• Real-life examples where this applies
• Offences where Section 27 is invoked
• Landmark case laws interpreting this section

What Is IPC Section 27?

Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code states:

"When any property is in the possession of a person's wife, clerk or servant, it is presumed to be in that person's possession—unless proven otherwise."

This means that if stolen or misappropriated property is found with someone closely associated with the accused (such as a wife, servant, or clerk), it can be legally presumed that the main person retains constructive possession of it.

This section prevents criminals from shielding themselves by using proxies to hold the property, especially in cases where an employer or master has control over others.

Simplified Explanation

In simple terms, IPC Section 27 holds a person responsible for stolen property even if it is physically with their wife, clerk, or servant. The law assumes that these people are acting on the person’s behalf unless proved otherwise.

This principle of constructive possession helps law enforcement and courts ensure that responsibility cannot be avoided just because the offender didn't hold the property directly.

Practical Examples

• Employer and Clerk: A company manager misappropriates funds and instructs his clerk to deposit the cash in a hidden office locker. Legally, the manager still possesses the stolen money.
• Husband and Wife: A man involved in gold theft hides the stolen jewellery in his wife’s cupboard. The law assumes he still possesses the items.
• Master and Servant: An employer gives stolen goods to his servant to bury in the backyard. Though the servant holds it, it’s deemed to be in the employer’s possession under Section 27.

Where Is This Term Used In IPC?

Section 27 acts as a supporting provision in cases involving:

• Section 411 – Dishonestly receiving stolen property
• Section 403 – Dishonest misappropriation of property
• Section 114 – Presence of abettor during the offence
• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy (where property is involved)

This provision is critical in building a case where the accused did not physically hold the property, but directed its handling through others.

Difference Between Actual Possession and Constructive Possession

Case Laws Interpreting IPC Section 27

Here are three relevant judgments that illustrate how courts have interpreted Section 27:

1. Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh

• Summary: In the case of Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 220) Supreme Court held that property found in the possession of a servant is deemed to be in the possession of the master, provided the servant holds it on account of the master. The case discussed the principle that the possession of a servant or agent is, in law, the possession of the employer or principal, unless it is shown that the servant held the property on his own behalf.
• Relevance: This case is directly relevant to Section 27 IPC, as it interprets the legal fiction of possession when property is held by a servant.

2. State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale

• Summary: In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale Bombay High Court reiterated that when property is in the possession of a clerk or servant, it is legally considered to be in the possession of the employer, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The court emphasised the importance of establishing the capacity in which the property was held.
• Relevance: This case is often cited to clarify the application of Section 27 IPC in cases of misappropriation by employees.

3. State Of Rajasthan vs Anandi Lal (9 May 1967)

• Summary:
  In State of Rajasthan vs Anandi Lal, the court addressed whether Section 27 of the IPC (which deems property in the possession of a wife, clerk, or servant as being in the possession of the owner) could be invoked. The court found that the facts did not justify the application of Section 27 IPC in this case, clarifying that the section applies only when property is held by a wife, clerk, or servant on account of the owner, not otherwise.

Relevance:
This case is relevant because it clarifies the scope of Section 27 IPC, emphasising that constructive possession under this section only arises when the relationship and circumstances show the property is held on behalf of the owner, not merely because of the relationship itself2.

Conclusion

IPC Section 27 ensures that those who attempt to escape criminal liability by shifting stolen property to someone close do not succeed. The section enables the courts to presume possession when the item is held by someone subordinate to the accused, like a wife, servant, or clerk.

This provision strengthens cases of theft, misappropriation, and fraud by eliminating the loophole of indirect possession. If you or someone you know is facing such allegations, it’s important to understand how constructive possession works under Indian law and seek appropriate legal advice.

FAQs

To help clarify doubts about IPC Section 27, here are some commonly asked questions:

Q1. What does IPC Section 27 cover?

It covers cases where stolen or misappropriated property is in the possession of someone acting under the authority of the accused (wife, clerk, or servant). The law assumes it’s still the accused’s possession.

Q2. Can the wife or servant be punished too?

Yes, if they knowingly help hide or hold the property. Otherwise, the primary liability falls on the main person unless rebutted.

Q3. Is this section applicable to tenants or friends?

No. It applies specifically to people legally subordinate to the accused—such as clerks, servants, or a spouse.

Q4. How can an accused rebut the presumption?

By proving that the wife/clerk/servant held the property without their knowledge, direction, or consent.