Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1922 DIGILAW 83 (MAD)

In Re: Lakshminarayana Chettiar v. Unknown

1922-03-09

body1922
ORDER 1. As the accused was only taking his own property which had been secured in his own shop, it is difficult to see how his act would be criminal. In order to constitute theft, there must be dishonesty, and it cannot be argued that accused intended to cause wrongful loss to complainant or wrongful gain to himself. Any loss that complainant might sustain owing to his inability to comply with the terms of his security bond could be remedied by civil proceedings. The Sessions Judges order is therefore set aside.