VENKATIGADU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point in this case is whether the offence of theft hag been properly defined by the learned Sessions Judge. He defines theft as the taking of moveable property, from a person's possession without that person's consent. This is not the proper definition of theft. Removal must be done dishonestly and the word dishonestly, must be explained to the jury. In the light of the facts of the case we cannot hold the incomplete definition of theft has caused a miscarriage of justice, but We would draw the attention of the learned Judge to the duty of explaining clearly to the jury the offence with which the accused are charged and in doing so the Judge should keep before him the words of the section defining the offence. With these remarks we dismiss the appeal.