THANOO PILLAI Vs. RAGHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under S.417 Criminal Procedure Code against an order of acquittal passed by the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara.

(2.) The appellants case was that the two respondents husband and wife who are the lessees of a property belonging to his sons committed theft of an enjili tree costing about Rs. 150/- from the property. The appellant also stated that he had to file the complaint as his sons were employed in Madras. Besides denying the act, the defence contended that the complainant was not competent to launch the prosecution as it was his sons and not he who had leased the property to them.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after discussing the prosecution evidence has rightly found that the accused had cut and removed the tree. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused as he was of the view that the father cannot assume the role of the prosecutor in this case since he is not proved to have sustained any wrongful loss. That the accused had cut and removed the tree and that those acts constitute the offence of theft is not disputed by the learned defence counsel. Hence the only question arising for determination in this appeal is whether a prosecution for theft can be launched by a person who is not directly interested in the property stolen or adversely affected by its loss.