Attorney-General V. Menthis

1960 Present: Sinnetamby, J.

ATTORNEY -GENERAL, Appellant, and B. MENTHIS, Respondent

S. C. 678-M. C. Hambantota, 33,204

    Criminal misappropriation-Ingredients of offence-Must there be an initial innocent taking ?-Theft-Penal Code, 88. 366, 386-Evidence Ordinance, s. 114 (a).

In order to constitute criminal misappropriation of property it is not necessary that there should be an initial innocent taking followed by a subsequent dishonest change of intention. If the initial taking of the property not in the 1 possession of any person is itself dishonest, then too the offence is made out.

Two bulls belonging to S were let loose by his herdsman for grazing on a pasture land. The accused was subsequently found at 10.45 p.m. driving the bulls away from the pasture land at a distance of It miles in circumstances showing that the accused intended to take the bulls for his own use, to the detriment of the owner.

Held, that the accused was guilty of criminal misappropriation and not of theft.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Hambantota.

V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for the complainant-appellant.

M. M. Kumar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document