Skip to content


Muhammad Ata and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Musammat Nannhon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All158; 67Ind.Cas.498
AppellantMuhammad Ata and ors.
RespondentEmperor Through Musammat Nannhon
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 378 - theft--crops sown in another's field--removal by latter--offence. - - the trial court found distinctly that the crop in question had been sown by musammat nannhon and out by the accused without any right. if he liked be could have taken further evidence, there was not the slightest necessity to direct an enquiry as it was proved that the crop in question had been sown by the complainant. it is not of the least consequence whether the complainant has or has not good title to the cultivation of the fields in question. now there is good evidence that she sowed the crop and that the applicants out the crop, i see no reason to disbelieve this evidence. the convictions are, therefore, good, the sentences are not excessive......the charge against the applicants was that they had committed theft by cutting and taking away the crop sowed by musammat nannhon. the trial court found distinctly that the crop in question had been sown by musammat nannhon and out by the accused without any right. they ware thus guilty of theft which may have been a technical theft, they were convicted accordingly. in appeal the point was raised that the crop in question stood upon fields which were in the cultivatory possession of the applicants themselves, the magistrate who heard the appeal directed an enquiry upon that point. he had no right to direct an enquiry. if he liked be could have taken further evidence, there was not the slightest necessity to direct an enquiry as it was proved that the crop in question had been sown by the.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. The charge against the applicants was that they had committed theft by cutting and taking away the crop sowed by Musammat Nannhon. The Trial Court found distinctly that the crop in question had been sown by Musammat Nannhon and out by the accused without any right. They ware thus guilty of theft which may have been a technical theft, They were convicted accordingly. In appeal the point was raised that the crop in question stood upon fields which were in the cultivatory possession of the applicants themselves, The Magistrate who heard the appeal directed an enquiry upon that point. He had no right to direct an enquiry. If he liked be could have taken further evidence, There was not the slightest necessity to direct an enquiry as it was proved that the crop in question had been sown by the complainant. The Patwari and Janki Prasad prove this. It is not of the least consequence whether the complainant has or has not good title to the cultivation of the fields in question. It is sufficient if she sowed the crop. Now there is good evidence that she sowed the crop and that the applicants out the crop, I see no reason to disbelieve this evidence. The convictions are, therefore, good, The sentences are not excessive. I dismiss this application.


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