ABDUL ALI FAKIR Vs. NETALI FAKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question in this Rule is whether on the facts found the offence of theft was committed.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioners out down a large number of valuable fruit trees-mango, jack, areca--on the land of one Jamir who, it is said by the defence, had conveyed his right to the petitioners. In Jamir s kabuliyat there is a clause to the effect that if he out any trees he would pay to the landlord compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per tree. It has been found that the petitioners, knowing this clause perfectly well, mala fide cut the trees in order to injure the landlord.

(3.) There can be no question that cutting down a large number of valuable fruit trees is a wanton act and the question in the present case is whether it amounts to theft.