Whatsapp

" FAIR COMMENTS ON A DECISION OF A COURT FAIR COMMENTS ON A DECISION OF A COURT   BY   Ch. Irshad Ahmad   [Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad.]   Someone stole a Professor's umbrella. May be that the Professor had no money to buy a new umbrella, or he thought, why he should buy another umbrella for another thief. He decided to replenish his need by stealing someone's umbrella. He actually moved an umbrella with dishonest intent to take. He, was caught. But, it was found that the umbrella the Professor moved was that which was stolen from him earlier. The title in stolen property does not pass to thief. Therefore, the title in the Professor's umbrella had remained with the Professor. The Professor being the owner of the umbrella he moved, though with dishonest intent to take some else's property, could not be convicted for committing theft, because no one can be held thief in respect of his own goods (cases of pawned goods excepted). Was the Professor not guilty of attempting to steal? The Court held: he was not. (Regina v Collins 9 Cox. C.C. 497). A thief intending to steal money put his hand into the pocket of a person. The pocket was empty. The thief could not steal anything. He could not be convicted for committing theft because he did not move anything. But, he was convicted for attempting to steal. Such cases have long baffled Courts and scholars. Le Fave and Scoot observed (Criminal Law (1972) 438): "judging from the volume of literature in this area (criminal attempts), scholars in the field of substantive criminal law appear to be more fascinated with the subject of impossibility in attempts than with any other subject".   2. By 1973 all commentators on criminal law had pretty well agreed that…