LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

B K Raghavendra Rao (Senior Advocate)     20 February 2010

Theft - punishability

In a typical south Indian marriage, guests are served food on plantain leaves on dining tables.  Mr. A is an adversary of Mr. B eating next to him.  Mr. A steals a pickle from the plantain leaf meal of Mr. B and this act is caught by the marriage videographer. 

 B lodges a police complaint against A for theft under Section 378 of IPC and the judge takes cognizance of the act.  Punishment for theft under Section 379 is imprisonment of either descripttion for a period of up to 3 years or fine or both.

Is A liable for punishment, if so for what may the reasonable period of imprisonment that may be imposed on him and is there a way for him to come out of the case?  



Learning

 12 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     20 February 2010

In the given case, court may pe prayed to release the accused on probation for one year and magistrate can do so as the matter is very petty like and no hard and fast provisions are applied in such cases.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     20 February 2010

Great litigants. Greater magistrate.

I read that:

When a person takes something that belongs to somebody else without permission, that is stealing. 

Now in this case, I pray to my friends to enlighten whether the pickle belonged to Mr. B. or to the host.


(Guest)

Please rely on S.95 of IPC and get the matter quashed. Even after trial the matter will end in acquittal in view of s. 95 IPC.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     20 February 2010

I also read that in the Privy Council, the largest number of cases came from India. That shows our propensity to litigate till the end of our life. 

B K Raghavendra Rao (Senior Advocate)     20 February 2010

Mr. Anil Agarwal, the host gave the pickle to B for his use.  The moment pickle was served on the leaf of B, it became his property.  No doubt that it is his property.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     21 February 2010

Offences of trival nature is no crime as there is no dishonest intention.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     21 February 2010

And we lament about backlog of cases!


(Guest)

Suchitraji & Venkatesh

Even if there was dishonest intention it is not an offence because S.95 says it is not an offence.  Hence intention is not relevant at all.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     21 February 2010

Thanks Anil Sir.


(Guest)
Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code is the statutory recognition of themaxim 'De Minimis Non Curat Lex'.The mandate of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code is to ignore trivialacts. By virtue of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code offences which may fallwithin the strict letter of the law but not within its spirit would be non-actionable.10. A trivial act is excused as no reasonable man complains of trifles. Indeed, law does not concern itself with trifles. Trivial acts are not crimes. They areonly negligible wrongs.

Sanjeev Panda (Advocate)     03 March 2010

I agree with the excellant reply of my friend Ajitabh Acharya. The law does not concern itself with trivials and that is codified in Section 95 IPC. No case is made out.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register