8suvvari Sanyasi Apparao And Anr. VS. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana Andanr.

Summary

---

On a complaint by one L, the Magistrate convicted the two appellants of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal Code for having removed a printing press alleged to have belonged to L to whom it was sold in 1955 by one R once a declared keeper of the said press under s. 4 of the Press Act, 1867. The defence was that the Press originally belonged to one G. In 1947 transferred it to N by Ex. D-2 wherein R joined formally, as declaration of keeper stood in his name. N sold the Press to the second appellant and another, but

R's name continued as a printer and keeper of the press In 1956 the second appellant leased out the press to the first appellant. According to the appellants, the second appellant was the owner in law and fact of the press and the first appellant was the lessee and had removed the press in the bonafide exercise of his right as lessee. The case of the prosecution hinged upon the evidence of R and that of the appellants rested upon the proof of the signature of R on Ex. D-2 which R denied.

The handwriting expert stated categorically that Ex. D-2 bore the signature of R.

The Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal against the acquittal order, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, said nothing about Ex. D-2 and considered the declaration of R under s. Of the Press Act which continued unchanged, as sufficient to prove an offence of theft. According to him, the removal of the Press amounted to theft even though the appellants removed it under a bonafide claim of right.

^

Held, that where a bonafide claim of right exists, it can be a Good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right.

For the purpose of criminal law on the present case the evidence prima facia pointed to a transfer of the press by R and to N. The evidence prima facie also established that the appellants had taken possession of the press under a 9

bonafide claim of right and there was some doubt about the right of R to transfer the press to L and further the defence that the appellants took possession of the press under bonafide claim of right was a good defence entitling them to an acquittal.

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

8suvvari Sanyasi Apparao And Anr. VS. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana Andanr.

PETITIONER: 8SUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA ANDANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/1961

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M.

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M.

DAS, S.K.

KAPUR, J.L.

CITATION: 1962 AIR 586 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 8

CITATOR INFO : F 1965 SC 585 (5)

ACT: Theft-Removal of property in the bonafide exercise o right-If good defence-Indian penal Code 1860 (XLV of1860), s. 380.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1961.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1958 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in ...

See the full content of this document

---