Emperor Vs. Ganpat Krishnaji Parit - Court Judgment
|Judge|| Mirza and ;Broomfiled, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1930Bom167; (1930)32BOMLR351|
|Respondent||Ganpat Krishnaji Parit|
.....possession, without his consent, with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt, commits theft under section 378, indian penal code.;queen-empress v. agha muhammad yumf (1895) i.l.r. 18 all. 88 and queen-empress v. sri churn chungo (1895) i.l.r. 22 cal. 1017, f.b., followed. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the..........were grazing, and tied them up in the verandah of his house. the accused pleaded guilty, but the district magistrate is of opinion that on the facts found the conviction of the offence of theft is illegal, and he recommends that it should be quashed. in our opinion the district magistrate is mistaken in his view of the law. it has been held in queen-empress v. agha muhammad yusuf ilr (1895) all. 88 and in queen-empress v. sri churn chungo ilr (1895) cal. 1017 the latter a full bench ruling, that-a creditor by taking any moveable property of his debtor from the debtor's possession without his consent with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt commits the offence of theft as defined in section 378 of the penal code.3. the opinion of the trial magistrate, therefore, that though.....
1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Kolaba, in a case in which one Ganpat Krishnaji has been convicted of an ofience under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has been bound over for six months under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The facts are that the complainant owed a small sum of money to the accused, and the accused, in order to put pressure on him to pay the debt, drove off two bullocks belonging to the complainant, which were grazing, and tied them up in the verandah of his house. The accused pleaded guilty, but the District Magistrate is of opinion that on the facts found the conviction of the offence of theft is illegal, and he recommends that it should be quashed. In our opinion the District Magistrate is mistaken in his view of the law. It has been held in Queen-Empress v. Agha Muhammad Yusuf ILR (1895) All. 88 and in Queen-Empress v. Sri Churn Chungo ILR (1895) Cal. 1017 the latter a Full Bench ruling, that-
A creditor by taking any moveable property of his debtor from the debtor's possession without his consent with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt commits the offence of theft as defined in section 378 of the Penal Code.
3. The opinion of the trial Magistrate, therefore, that though the accused was guilty of what he calls a technical offence of theft he had no dishonest intention is not correct. We see no reason why we should differ from the statement of the law in the cases referred to.
4. The conviction is correct, and as the accused has been dealt with under Section 562 we see no reason to interfere. The papers should be returned to the District Magistrate.
5. I agree.