K. N. MEHRA versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 11-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
K. N. MEHRA 
fl. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
fJ AGAN N ADHADAS, 
JAl'ER 
IMAM and 
MENON JJ.l 
{;ovINDA 
623 
Aircraft, Theft 
of-Used 
for 
training-Implied 
consent-
Dishonest intention-Temporary retention-Theft 
and 
Larceny, 
Di,·tinctivn-lndian Penal Code (Act XLTI of 1860), ss. 23, 24, 378. 
By s. 378 of the Indian Penal Code : "Whoever, intending 
to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of 
any 
person without that person's consent, 
1m0\·es that property in 
order to such taking, is said to commit theft". 
P and the appel!ant were cadets 
on training in the 
Indian 
Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. but P had been discharged on the 
gr·ound of misconduct, and on the day of the incident the appellant 
was due for a local flight in a Dakota as part of his training as a 
Navigator. 
With 
the help of P, 
who knew flving, he took off 
another type of aircraft, Harvard H. T. 822. without authorisation. 
and on the same day thev force-landed at a place in 
Pakistan. 
Some days later they contacted the authorities in the Indian High 
Corntnission and on 
their 
\vay to 
India they \Vere arrested 
at 
Jodhpur and prosecuted 
for 
the theft of the aircraft. 
It was 
contended for the appdlant that as a cadet under training he was 
entitled to take an aircraft on flight and therefore there was an 
implied consent to the "moving" of the aircraft within the mean-
ing of s. 378 of the Indian Penal CoJe, and consequently there 
could be no dishonest intention much less such an intention at the 
time when the flight was started, so as to constitute theft. 
It was 
found that the purpose for 
which the flight was 
undertaken was 
to go to Pakistan with a view to seeking employment there. 
Held, that as the flight was unauthorised 
there could be no 
consent. and as it was unlawful at ·the outset. in the circumstances 
of the case, and the appeilant obtained a temporary use of the 
aircraft for his ()\Vil purposes and deprived the 
c;m·ernment of its 
use, there was a dishonest intention, and consequently 
the flight 
constituted a theft of the aircraft. 
A temporary retention of property 
by 
a person wrongfully 
gaining thereby. or a temporary keeping out of property from the 
person legally entitled thereto, ;1uy amount to theft under s. 378 
of the Indian Penal Code, and in this respect the offence differs 
from "larceny" in English 
Law which 
contemplates ·permanent 
gain or less. 
Queen-Empress v. Nagappa, ( 1890) l.L.R. 
15 Rom. 344 and 
Queen-Empress v. Sri 
Ch1mi 
Clmngu ( 189~) l.L.R. 22 Cal. 
1017, · 
referred to. 
1957 
Fehrua;y I I. 
1957 
K.N. Mthra 
v. 
Tht Statt of 
Rajasthan 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
CRnnNAT. 
APPELLATJ: 
!L'Rrsn1cnoN : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 51 nf J955. 
Appeal by 
special leave 
from the judgment and 
orJcr c!ared October 22, 1953, of the 
Rajasthan 
High 
Court at jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1953 
arising out of the judgment and order 
dated 
May 18, 
1953, of the Court of Sessions 
jurlge at Jodhpur 
in 
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1953. 
Jai Gopiil Sethi and W. S. Nantla, for the appellani. 
R. Ganpat!ty Iyer, Porns A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, 
for the respondent. 
~7. February 11. The 
)uJgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
jAGANNADHADAS ).-The 
appellant, 
K. N. Mehra, 
anJ one M. Z. Phillips were both convicted under s. 379 
of the 
Indian 
Penal 
Code and sentenced 
to simple 
imprisonment by the 
trial 
Magistrate 
for eighteen 
months anrl a fine of Rs. 750 
with simple imprisonment 
in default of payment of fine for a further term of four 
months. 
The conviction 
and sentence 
against 
them 
have been confirmed .on appeal by the 
Sessions Judge 
and on revision by the High 
Court. 
1 ~.c appeal before 
us is by special leave obtained on behalf of the appellant 
Meh ra alone. 
Both Mehra and Phillips were cadets on training in 
the Indian Air Force Academy, fodhpur. 
The prosecu-
tion is with reference to an incident 
which is rather 
extraordinary being 
for alleged theft 
of 
an aircraft, 
which, according to the evidence of the Commanding 
Officer, P.W. l, has never so far occurred. 
The alleged 
theft was on May 14, 1952. 
Phillips 
was discharged 
from the Academy just the 
pre1'ious Jay, i.e., 
May 13, 
1952, on grounds of misconduct. 
Mehra was a cadet 
receiving training as a 
Navigator. 
The 
duty 
of a 
Navigator is only to guide 
a pilot 
with the help of 
instruments and maps. 
It is not clear from the e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.