LexSUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR. versus BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Octoin Sa
8 SUPREME COUltT REPOltTS
(1962.J SUPP'
SUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR.
v.
BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA A~])
ANR.
.
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPt:R t1nd M. HrnA Y ATUI.I,An
JJ).
•
1
1l1tfl-Rc111or;ul of pro1)1..rt.u iJ, tJ,e bou0Jld1· i.:xt:rci,•1-. ;-,
right- If good d1fcnce--illdian p:1111l Codr,, 1860 (X /,V of I ~GO;.
s. 380.
On a con1plaint by one L, the Magistrc1te cou1Jicte<l the
two appellant. of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code for having removed a printing presi:
allc~e<l to have
belonged to L to whom it was sold in 1955 by one R once a
declared keeper of the said press und("r s. 4 of the Press Act,
~867. The defence was that the Press originally belonged
to one G.
In 1947 G transferred it to N by Ex. 0-2 where-
in R joined formally, as declaration of keeper stood in his
name.
N sold the Press to the second appellant and
anoth~r,
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 fint
appellant was the leJsee and h~d removed the press in the
bonafide exercise of his right as lessee.
The r.i;c of the pro-
secution 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 cate-
gorically that Ex. 0-2 bore the signature of R.
The Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal
against the acquittal order, passed by the Addifional District
and Sessions Judge, said nothing about Ex. 0-2 and considered
the dcclaration of R under a. of the Press Act which continued
unchanged, as sufficient to prove an offence of theft.
Accord-
ing to him, the removal of the Press amounted to theft
even though the appellants removed it under a bona/id.- claim
of right.
Held, that where a bonafi<k claim of right exists, it can
be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act docs not
amount to theft, unleJs there be not only no legal right but no
appearance or colour of a legal right.
For the purpose of criminal law on the frcscnt case the
evidence prima /Mia pointed to a transfer o the press by R
and G to N. The evidence prima /<Mi< also established that
the appellants had taken possession of the press unMr a
. -•
•
I
~ 111
•
/
I
I
' •
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
9
bona/irk claim of right and there was some doubt about the
right of R to transfer the pr~ss to L and further the defence
that the appellants took possession of the pres·; under bona-
/irk claim of right was a good defence entitling them to an
acquittal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsDIC'l'ION: Crin!inal
•
Appeal No. 31 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from th,; judgment
and order dated October 7, 1958 of l;he Andhea
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 456
of 1957.
P. Rarn Reddy, for the appellants.
Ratna Rao and K. R. Ohoiulhri, for respondent
No. I.
.
A. Ga,nganatham Ohetty and T. .'If. Sen, for
respondent No. 2.
1961. October 5. 'fhe Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1961
Suvvari Sa'!YO•i
Apparao
••
Boddepa/li
Lakshminaray1111a
HIDAYATULLAH, J.- The two Dppbllants, who
lfid•y•luilah J.
were granted special leave by this Court, appeal
against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh convicting them, on appeal against acquit-
tal, of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentencing them to six months' rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00/- each, with
further rigorous imprisonment for one month in
default of payment of fine.
The prosecution .case which had a chequered
career in the High Court and the two Courts below,
is as follows : In Dusi, which is a part of Bhas-
kararaopuram, there was· a Press known as Srini-
vasa Printing Press at Srinivasa Ashram. This
Press existed for over 17 years. Pappala Chinna
Ramadasu (P.W.4) was admittedly a printer and
for some years, the declared keeper of that . Press
under s. 4 of the Prtl!l8 and Registration of Hooks
Act, 1867. The declarations were made in 1944
(Ex.P.4) and 1947 (EH ·P-5). On November 21, 1955,
IHI
Srt11vari Sa11;·asi
A/>Paru
Y.
BodJ,polli
IA111uninaraJOM
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
P~ppala Chinna Ra.madasu sold this press by a
registered document (Ex.P. J) to one Boddepalli
Lakshmina!·ayana
for
Rs. 4,liOO/-,
of
which
Hs.3,500/- were shown to have bExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.