Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 379,24

(NOTE: Wrongly 2 citations added inPLD. Both are mentioned.)   Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379 read with S. 24-"Disho nestly"-Definition-Magistrate recording finding that paddy grown by complainant in his land it-as cut and taken away by accused "with intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrong ful loss to complainant"-Finding 'clear imputation of "dishonest intention"-Conviction for theft maintained.   While convicting the accused for the offence of theft, the Magistrate recorded the finding that "he (complainant) grew the paddy (in his land) and all the accused persons reaped away paddy of the land of complainant without his consent with intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves." The Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court and recommended the setting aside of the order of Magistrate on the ground that there is no finding of dishonest intention of the accused persons while convicting them under section 379, P. P. C.:   Held, that the statement of the Additional Sessions Judge is not borne out by the record. The Magistrate has, in fact, recorded a clear finding to the effect that the paddy was grown by the complainant in his land and the accused persons cut and took away the same with an intention of causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. This is certainly imputing what is called dishonest intention.   The finding of the Magistrate quoted above will clearly show that it is not correct to say that the Magistrate did not record a finding of the requisite intention. Even if there would have been no clear finding of dishonest intention, there could be no ground for interfering with the impugned order of conviction, inasmuch as the Magistrate has recorded a finding to the effect that the paddy was grown by the complainant in his land and that the accused persons reaped away the same. In the presence of these two findings, the irresistible conclusion would be that the accused had dishonest intention in doing so.   Alep Khan v. Mastan Khan and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2-D of 1961 (unreported) rel.    JUDGMENT…