IPC [S.378] - Case Law - Dishonest intention and unlawful means in an offence of theft–K. N. MEHRA vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
1957 AIR 369
- Bench: B Jagannadhadas, J.
- Court: Supreme Court
- Appellant:K. N. Mehra
- Respondents:The State Of Rajasthan
- Citation: 1957 AIR 369
Issue:
How can dishonest intention and unlawful means be determined u/s 378 of IPC?
Facts:
- The appellant Mehra and M.Z Philips were training cadets in Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. On May 13 1952, the latter was discharged from Academy on grounds of misconduct. Mehra was supposed to fly a Dakota with an Om Prakash, a cadet on the next day. Contrary to this, Mehra and Philips took off in a Harvard HT 822 on May 14 before the authorized time, without following the requisite procedures. In addition, they admitted that they had to force-land the flight 100 miles away from Indo-Pak border around forenoon on the same day. Consequently, they sought help of a military adviser in Karachi and he arranged for them to come back to Jodhpur, where they were arrested on May 17.
Respondent’s contentions:
- Mehra and Philips stole the aircraft with dishonest intention.
- The flight to Pakistan was intentional.
Appellant’s contentions:
- Mehra and Philip took off the aircraft and flew for some time. There is no question of the act being an offence under the IPC since it is merely a young student’s “thoughtless prank”.The act was just an accidental, unauthorizedcross-country flight by a training student who was entitled to do it.
- However, they were faced with bad weather and turned back towards Jodhpur. When the fuel was exhausted, they force landed the flight in Pakistan territory without knowledge as they lost their way.
- It is not uncommon that aircrafts take off from the academy without following the formalities. They did not receive the radio signals nor were there any maps, compass or watch in the aircraft.Had they intended to steal away the aircraft to Pakistan, they would not ask the military adviser to help bring them back to India.
- The appellant had already been an under-trial prisoner for 11 months and had gone through almost a year of imprisonment as part of his sentence.
Final Decision and Principles established:
After considering the evidences and conclusions in previous trials, the Court could not establish that the Trial Courts or the High Court were wrong in holding the case against the appellant. Implied consent for the trainer to fly an aircraft do not apply here, as there were telephonic signals sent to the aircraft, to bring it back. Wrongful gain can be mere unlawful acquisition of a property, creating ‘temporary’ loss to the Government. The circumstances conclude both the essential ingredients of theft – absence of consent and unlawfulness of means. From the factual analysis, the Court concludes that the wrongful gain and loss were intentional. However, considering that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment, his sentence was modified to the period already undergone. The appeal was dismissed while maintaining the conviction.
