1. Core Legal Answer & Context: This scenario involves two distinct criminal acts by A: an attempt to commit theft from B, and a completed act of theft from C.

Firstly, regarding B's box: A attempts to steal jewels by breaking open the box. Even though A finds no jewels, the act of breaking open the box with the intention to steal constitutes an 'attempt to commit theft'. The fact that the intended object of theft (jewels) was not present does not negate the attempt, as the act was proximate enough to the commission of the offence and done with the requisite mens rea. This is a case of 'impossible attempt' where the crime could not be completed due to factual impossibility, but the attempt is still punishable.

Secondly, regarding the ₹100 currency note: A had already stolen this note from C. The act of placing it in B's box does not alter the fact that the theft from C was a completed offence prior to this action. Theft is complete when there is a dishonest taking of movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent. A's subsequent action of placing the note in B's box might be an act of disposal or concealment, but the original theft from C remains a distinct and completed crime.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  • Section 378 (Theft): Defines theft as dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent.
  • Section 379 (Punishment for Theft): Prescribes punishment for theft.
  • Section 511 (Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment): Deals with attempts to commit offences. An attempt is an act done with the intention to commit an offence, and which is a step towards its commission, but falls short of the actual commission.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• R. v. McPherson (1857) (English case, but principles are relevant): This case, though not Indian, illustrates the concept of attempt. The accused put his hand into a pocket to steal, but the pocket was empty. It was held that he was guilty of attempt to steal. This supports the idea that factual impossibility does not negate an attempt if the accused has done all that he intended to do towards the commission of the offence.
• State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980): The Supreme Court of India discussed the stages of a crime (intention, preparation, attempt, commission). It clarified that an attempt begins when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence, which is a step towards its commission. This case reinforces that A's act of breaking open the box with intent to steal constitutes an attempt.

4. Clear Conclusion: A has committed two distinct offences:
5. Attempt to commit theft from B (for breaking open the box with the intention to steal jewels, even though none were found).
6. Theft from C (for dishonestly taking the ₹100 currency note from C's possession without consent, which was a completed act prior to placing it in B's box).