Theft - punishability

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

And we lament about backlog of cases!

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.

Thanks Anil Sir.

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.

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.