Skip to content


imam and anr. Vs. Emperor at the Prosecution of Kasimuddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in38Ind.Cas.318
Appellantimam and anr.
RespondentEmperor at the Prosecution of Kasimuddi
Excerpt:
penal code (xlv of 1860), section 379 - taking fruit, from trees standing on joint property--theft--assertion of right--criminal intent--offence. - .....fruits taken represent more than 4/25ths of the whole. on the whole we think that this is not a case in which criminal dishonesty should have been imputed to the petitioners, and we, therefore, make this rule absolute and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners.2. the bail bonds of the petitioners will now be.....
Judgment:

1. In this case it appears that the petitioners have been convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the taking of eight jack fruits. The trees from which these jack fruits were plucked and taken stand, it appears, on a plot in which, on the finding of the Magistrate, the employer of the petitioners has a 4/25th share. The fruits were taken in assertion of the right to share in the proceeds of the plot to, that extent. There is no suggestion that the fruits taken represent more than 4/25ths of the whole. On the whole we think that this is not a case in which criminal dishonesty should have been imputed to the petitioners, and we, therefore, make this Rule absolute and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners.

2. The bail bonds of the petitioners will now be discharged.


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