Skip to content


Sarju and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916All314; 32Ind.Cas.667
AppellantSarju and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 879 - crops sown and cut down by accused--theft--criminal procedure code, (act v of 1898), section 145. - - besides even if he be deemed to have been in possession of the fields he was clearly not in possession of the crops and, therefore, the accused were not guilty of the offence of theft......case have been convicted of theft of certain crops. the allegation of the complainant was that the crops were sown by him and that the accused had wrongfully cut them. the learned sessions judge has found that the crops were not sown by the complainant, mahabir, and that they were sown by the accused. under this circumstance the crops being the property of the accused, the cutting down of these crops by them could not constitute the offence of theft. the learned sessions judge thinks that because an order was made in favour of mahabir under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the crops. this view is not, in my opinion, correct. besides even if he be deemed to have been in possession of the fields he was clearly not in possession.....
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. The two accused in this case have been convicted of theft of certain crops. The allegation of the complainant Was that the crops were sown by him and that the accused had wrongfully cut them. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the crops were not sown by the complainant, Mahabir, and that they were sown by the accused. Under this circumstance the crops being the property of the accused, the cutting down of these crops by them could not constitute the offence of theft. The learned Sessions Judge thinks that because an order was made in favour of Mahabir under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the crops. This view is not, in my opinion, correct. Besides even if he be deemed to have been in possession of the fields he was clearly not in possession of the crops and, therefore, the accused were not guilty of the offence of theft. I accordingly set aside the conviction of the accused, acquit them of the offence of which they were convicted and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded. As the sentence of imprisonment passed on Sarju has already been served out, no order of release is called for.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //