Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Boddepalli Lakshminarayana - Appellant
Versus
Suvvari Sanyasi Appa Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10-07-58
THEFT - Ingredients - Dishonestly - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act XXV of 1867) - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) - Sections 378, 379, 380 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974) - Sections 251, 251-A, 252, 258, 259, 383, 385, 417, 423, 439, 537, 545 - Interpretation - Application.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a printing press owner, left his press in the custody of the second accused. During his absence, the first and third accused, with the assistance of cart-men, removed the press from the complainant's premises and took it to the first accused's house. The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused, alleging theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) (IPC). The Judicial Second Class Magistrate convicted the first and third accused under Section 380 IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 250 each. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the accused had dishonestly removed the press from the complainant's possession, thereby committing theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court held that the accused's claim of right to the press was not a valid defense to the charge of theft. The Court also found that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate had erred in acquitting the second and fourth accused under Section 251-A(11) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974) (CrPC), as that provision was not applicable to cases arising out of private complaints. The Court further held that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court was illegal and that the accused should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in jail.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had dishonestly removed the press from the complainant's possession, thereby committing theft under Section 380 IPC? 2. Whether the accused's claim of right to the press was a valid defense to the charge of theft? 3. Whether the Judicial Second Class Magistrate had erred in acquitting the second and fourth accused under Section 251-A(11) CrPC? 4. Whether the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the accused had dishonestly removed the press from the complainant's possession, thereby committing theft under Section 380 IPC, because: - The accused had taken the press out of the complainant's possession without his consent. - The accused had moved the press with the intention of taking it dishonestly. - The accused had gained by unlawful means, as they were not entitled to keep the press in their possession under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act XXV of 1867). - The complainant had suffered a loss, as he was no longer in possession of the press and could not use it. 2. The Court held that the accused's claim of right to the press was not a valid defense to the charge of theft, because: - The accused could not lawfully keep the press in their possession at the time of its removal, having regard to the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. - A bona fide claim of right to property does not justify the use of force or trespass to obtain possession of that property. 3. The Court held that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate had erred in acquitting the second and fourth accused under Section 251-A(11) CrPC, because: - Section 251-A CrPC is not applicable to cases arising out of private complaints. - The correct procedure for the Magistrate to have followed was to acquit the accused under Section 258(1) CrPC. 4. The Court held that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court was illegal, because: - A sentence of imprisonment involves the suffering of it outside the custody of the Court. - The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court is incapable of execution, as it does not amount to the suffering of imprisonment within the meaning of the CrPC.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the acquittal of the accused and convicted them under Section 380 IPC. The Court sentenced the accused to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each, with a further one month of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. The Court also directed that the printing press be handed over to the complainant and that a sum of Rs. 300 be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 545 CrPC.
( 1 ) THIS in an appeal preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, acquitting the accused persons in this case.
( 2 ) IN the original complaint, there were four accused of which the second and the fourth accused were acquitted by the Judl. Second Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, under Section 251-A of the Cr. P. C. Accused 1 and 3 were convicted under Section 380 I. P. C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Accused 1 and 3 preferred an appeal against their convictions, to the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, who, as aforesaid, acquitted them of the charge. Hence this appeal.
( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case are as follows; The complainant, examined as P. W. 1, is the owner of a printing press which was located in the premises of an ashramam known as Srinivasa Asharamam near Dusi village. P. W. 1 had purchased the press from one Pappala China Kamadasu examined as P. W. 4 under Ex. P-l dated 21-11-1955, which is a registered agreement for the sale of the press, for Rs. 4,000. 00. Out of this sale consideration, Rs. 3,500. 00 was paid at the time of execution of Ex. P-1 and, subsequently, the balance of Rs. 500. 00 was paid on 10-1-1956, as evidenced by Ex. P-2. Prior to the sale of the press to P. W. 1, the press was registered in the name of P. W. 4 who was declared the keeper and proprietor of the press under Section 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (Act XXV of 1867 ).
( 4 ) SOME time prior to 25-3-1956, the date of the offence, the complainant, p. W. 1, had left for Kurnool after locking the room in which the press was located. On the night of 25-3-1956, the case for the prosecution is, that accused 1 and 3, taking advantage of the absence of P. W. 1 from the village, broke open the lock of the room and with the assistance of some cart-men removed the press, in portions, by bullock-carts to the house of the first accused in the village of Kolakota. This is said to have happened at mid-night on the 25th 26/03/1956. When the complainant returned to Dusi on 27-3-1956, he found the press missing and having come to know from P. Ws. 2 and 3 that the press had been stolen, made a report to the police, Ex. P. 13. Strangely enough, the police took no action in the matter and hence P. W. 1 was necessitated to prefer a private complaint.
( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the simple point for consideration in this case was whether the accused removed the press from the possession of P. W. 1 with a dishonest intention so as ,to bring the case within the scope of Section 380 I. P. C. , both the Courts below embarked on an elaborate examination of the title to the press, the origin of that title, the parallel title set up by the accused and various other extraneous and irrelevant matters which did not arise for consideration at all in this case. A criminal court is not competent to adjudicate upon the civil rights of parties in respect of their title to or ownership of properly whether movable of immovable. That would be trespassing into the exclusive in jurisdiction of a civil court, for, in a theft charge, all that the court has to decide is whether at the time of the alleged occurrence the property that was the subject matter of theft was in the possession of the complainant and whether it was moved out of the complainants possession with a dishonest intention. It was this error on the part of the Courts below that has resulted in their receiving as evidence unnecessary and irrelevant matter in this case, thus burdening the record for no justifiable reason,
( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the complaint and the evidence in support thereof, it would be necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act XXV of 1867) Section 3 of the Act runs as follows: "every book or paper printed within the S
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
