# Octoin Sa 8 SUPREME COUltT REPOltTS (1962.J SUPP' SUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR v. BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA A~]) ANR

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 8
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsDIC'l'ION: Crin!inal • Appeal No. 31 of 1961
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/octoin-sa-8-supreme-coultt-repoltts-1962-j-supp-suvvari-sanyasi-apparao-and-anr-2575
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

1961
Octoin Sa
8 SUPREME COUltT REPOltTS
(1962.J SUPP'
SUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR.
v.
BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA A~])
ANR.
.
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPt:R t1nd M. HrnA Y ATUI.I,An
JJ).
•
1
1l1tfl-Rc111or;ul of pro1)1..rt.u iJ, tJ,e bou0Jld1· i.:xt:rci,•1-. ;-,
right- If good d1fcnce--illdian p:1111l Codr,, 1860 (X /,V of I ~GO;.
s. 380.
On a con1plaint by one L, the Magistrc1te cou1Jicte<l the
two appellant. of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code for having removed a printing presi:
allc~e<l to have
belonged to L to whom it was sold in 1955 by one R once a
declared keeper of the said press und("r s. 4 of the Press Act,
~867. The defence was that the Press originally belonged
to one G.
In 1947 G transferred it to N by Ex. 0-2 wherein R joined formally, as declaration of keeper stood in his
name.
N sold the Press to the second appellant and
anoth~r,
but R's name continued as a printer and keeper of the press.
In 1956 the second appellant leased out the press to the first
appellant. According to the appellants, the second appellant
was the owner in law and fact of the press and the fint
appellant was the leJsee and h~d removed the press in the
bonafide exercise of his right as lessee.
The r.i;c of the prosecution hinged upon the evidence of R and that of the
appellants rested upon the proof of the signature of R on Ex.
D-2 which R denied. The handwriting expert stated categorically that Ex. 0-2 bore the signature of R.
The Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal
against the acquittal order, passed by the Addifional District
and Sessions Judge, said nothing about Ex. 0-2 and considered
the dcclaration of R under a. of the Press Act which continued
unchanged, as sufficient to prove an offence of theft.
According to him, the removal of the Press amounted to theft
even though the appellants removed it under a bona/id.- claim
of right.
Held, that where a bonafi<k claim of right exists, it can
be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act docs not
amount to theft, unleJs there be not only no legal right but no
appearance or colour of a legal right.
For the purpose of criminal law on the frcscnt case the
evidence prima /Mia pointed to a transfer o the press by R
and G to N. The evidence prima /<Mi< also established that
the appellants had taken possession of the press unMr a
. -•
•
I
~ 111
•
/
I
I
' •
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
9
bona/irk claim of right and there was some doubt about the
right of R to transfer the pr~ss to L and further the defence
that the appellants took possession of the pres·; under bona-
/irk claim of right was a good defence entitling them to an
acquittal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsDIC'l'ION: Crin!inal
•
Appeal No. 31 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from th,; judgment
and order dated October 7, 1958 of l;he Andhea
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 456
of 1957.
P. Rarn Reddy, for the appellants.
Ratna Rao and K. R. Ohoiulhri, for respondent
No. I.
.
A. Ga,nganatham Ohetty and T. .'If. Sen, for
respondent No. 2.
1961. October 5. 'fhe Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1961
Suvvari Sa'!YO•i
Apparao
••
Boddepa/li
Lakshminaray1111a
HIDAYATULLAH, J.- The two Dppbllants, who
lfid•y•luilah J.
were granted special leave by this Court, appeal
against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh convicting them, on appeal against acquittal, of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentencing them to six months' rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00/- each, with
further rigorous imprisonment for one month in
default of payment of fine.
The prosecution .case which had a chequered
career in the High Court and the two Courts below,
is as follows : In Dusi, which is a part of Bhaskararaopuram, there was· a Press known as Srinivasa Printing Press at Srinivasa Ashram. This
Press existed for over 17 years. Pappala Chinna
Ramadasu (P.W.4) was admittedly a printer and
for some years, the declared keeper of that . Press
under s. 4 of the Prtl!l8 and Registration of Hook

## Text

1961
Octoin Sa
8 SUPREME COUltT REPOltTS
(1962.J SUPP'
SUVVARI SANYASI APPARAO AND ANR.
v.
BODDEPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA A~])
ANR.
.
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPt:R t1nd M. HrnA Y ATUI.I,An
JJ).
•
1
1l1tfl-Rc111or;ul of pro1)1..rt.u iJ, tJ,e bou0Jld1· i.:xt:rci,•1-. ;-,
right- If good d1fcnce--illdian p:1111l Codr,, 1860 (X /,V of I ~GO;.
s. 380.
On a con1plaint by one L, the Magistrc1te cou1Jicte<l the
two appellant. of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code for having removed a printing presi:
allc~e<l to have
belonged to L to whom it was sold in 1955 by one R once a
declared keeper of the said press und("r s. 4 of the Press Act,
~867. The defence was that the Press originally belonged
to one G.
In 1947 G transferred it to N by Ex. 0-2 wherein R joined formally, as declaration of keeper stood in his
name.
N sold the Press to the second appellant and
anoth~r,
but R's name continued as a printer and keeper of the press.
In 1956 the second appellant leased out the press to the first
appellant. According to the appellants, the second appellant
was the owner in law and fact of the press and the fint
appellant was the leJsee and h~d removed the press in the
bonafide exercise of his right as lessee.
The r.i;c of the prosecution hinged upon the evidence of R and that of the
appellants rested upon the proof of the signature of R on Ex.
D-2 which R denied. The handwriting expert stated categorically that Ex. 0-2 bore the signature of R.
The Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal
against the acquittal order, passed by the Addifional District
and Sessions Judge, said nothing about Ex. 0-2 and considered
the dcclaration of R under a. of the Press Act which continued
unchanged, as sufficient to prove an offence of theft.
According to him, the removal of the Press amounted to theft
even though the appellants removed it under a bona/id.- claim
of right.
Held, that where a bonafi<k claim of right exists, it can
be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act docs not
amount to theft, unleJs there be not only no legal right but no
appearance or colour of a legal right.
For the purpose of criminal law on the frcscnt case the
evidence prima /Mia pointed to a transfer o the press by R
and G to N. The evidence prima /<Mi< also established that
the appellants had taken possession of the press unMr a
. -•
•
I
~ 111
•
/
I
I
' •
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
9
bona/irk claim of right and there was some doubt about the
right of R to transfer the pr~ss to L and further the defence
that the appellants took possession of the pres·; under bona-
/irk claim of right was a good defence entitling them to an
acquittal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsDIC'l'ION: Crin!inal
•
Appeal No. 31 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from th,; judgment
and order dated October 7, 1958 of l;he Andhea
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 456
of 1957.
P. Rarn Reddy, for the appellants.
Ratna Rao and K. R. Ohoiulhri, for respondent
No. I.
.
A. Ga,nganatham Ohetty and T. .'If. Sen, for
respondent No. 2.
1961. October 5. 'fhe Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1961
Suvvari Sa'!YO•i
Apparao
••
Boddepa/li
Lakshminaray1111a
HIDAYATULLAH, J.- The two Dppbllants, who
lfid•y•luilah J.
were granted special leave by this Court, appeal
against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh convicting them, on appeal against acquittal, of an offence under s. 380 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentencing them to six months' rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00/- each, with
further rigorous imprisonment for one month in
default of payment of fine.
The prosecution .case which had a chequered
career in the High Court and the two Courts below,
is as follows : In Dusi, which is a part of Bhaskararaopuram, there was· a Press known as Srinivasa Printing Press at Srinivasa Ashram. This
Press existed for over 17 years. Pappala Chinna
Ramadasu (P.W.4) was admittedly a printer and
for some years, the declared keeper of that . Press
under s. 4 of the Prtl!l8 and Registration of Hooks
Act, 1867. The declarations were made in 1944
(Ex.P.4) and 1947 (EH ·P-5). On November 21, 1955,
IHI
Srt11vari Sa11;·asi
A/>Paru
Y.
BodJ,polli
IA111uninaraJOM
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
P~ppala Chinna Ra.madasu sold this press by a
registered document (Ex.P. J) to one Boddepalli
Lakshmina!·ayana
for
Rs. 4,liOO/-,
of
which
Hs.3,500/- were shown to have been paid in arlvRnce
and the balance was received by Pappala Chiuna
liamadasu on January 10, 191ifi, (Ex.P.2). Two
applications were then made on Decem her J, 1955,
n·spectively by Chinna Ramadasu and Boddcpalli
Lakshminara.yana before the Collector and District
~fagistrate, for substituting the name of Boddepalli
Lakshminarayana in place of that of Pappa.la
Chinna Ramadasu in the declaration. On December 6, 1955, by Ex. P.11 they were informed that
they should apply under the Press and Registration
of Books Act (25 of 1867). Subsequently, on ,January 11, 1956, a declaration under s. 4 of that Act
was made by Boddepalli Lakshminarayana and was
accepted (Ex.P.3).
The ca.se of the prosecution further is that
Boddepalli Lakshminarayana went to Kurnool on
March 20, 1956, and in his absence, the two appel·
!ants with two others (who were prosecuted but
acquitte~) removed the Printing Press on the night
of March :15, 1956 to Korlakota where the first
appellant, Apparao, resides. A report of the offence
(Ex.P-13), purporting to be written on March 27,
1956, was handed in at the police station house on
the following day at 8 P.M. The police took no
acLion, and a compl&int was, therefore, filed on
April 4, 1956, by Boddepalli Laksmina.rayana. The
Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srike.kulam, convicted the two appellants of an offenoe under s. 380
of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the two
others, with whom we a.re not concerned, and sentenced each of the aprllants to simple imprisonment till the rising o the Court and a fine of
Rs.250/-,with simple imprisonment for one month in
default. On appeal, the Additional District and
SeB11ions Judge, Srikakulam, set asitle the convictoin and acquitted them.. The complainant then
obtained special leave of the High Court to file all
. -
•
'
•
:
~ .. I
..
' ..
"
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 11
appeal against this acquittal, and the High Court
reversed the acquittal, as already indicated above.
In support of the prosecution case, the complainant examined four witnesses, including himself.
J>appala Chinna Ramadasu was examined as P.W.4
to prove that he had sold the Press to Boddepalli
Lakshminarayana, and two other witnesses were
examined to prove the removal of the Printing
Press by the appellants.
The defence of the appellants was as follows :
According to them, the Press originally belonged to
one Govindachari, and on October 25, 1947 he
transferred it to Kuna Appala Naidu by Ex. D-2.
In the registered sale deed then executed, Govindachari was joined formally by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu. The sale was for Rs. 6,400/· and on the same
day, a promissory note was executed by Kuna
Appala Naidu in favour of Govindachari, which was
attested by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu. Subsequently, Appala Naidu made payments of certain
amounts, and endorsements on the promissory note
showing these payments were signed by Pappala
Chinna Ramadasu as a witness .. Kuna Appala Naidu
was examined as D.W.l, and he stated that the
name of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu was formally
included in the transfer deed, since the declaration
stood in his name. He also''stated that -the deed,
Ex. D-2, waa signed as witness by one Akkala
Naidu, who died years before the present controversy started. Kuna Appala Naidu later sold the
Press to the second appellant and one Sri K. Sri·
rru:ndas, and the second appellant continued in
possession as owner. Pappala Chinna Ramada.au
continued as the printer, and his declaration as the
keeper of the Press a.lso continued. In 1953,
Pappala Chinna Ramada.au left the .Press for good.
The Press was leased out by the second appellant
to one C. Appanna, and this lease continued till
1956. On March 19, 1956, an agreement for lea.Ile
was executed in favour of the first appellant, and
on March 26, 1956, a registered deed was duly
1961
Suvvari Sanyusi
Apparao
v.
Boddepalli
Lakshminarayana
Hidayatullah J.
I
Sui-rari SanJ'•si
A>P(J1'a6
v.
Boddepalli
LakJhminaraoyanll
, ,
... :-?/;',,.----.- ';-,.
12. SUPREME COUH,T REPORTS
[1962] SUPP.
executed. According to the appellants, the Press
was removed during the day on ?lfarch 27 and the
lease amount was paid on the :28th.
According to
them, the second appellant was tho owner, in law
and in fact, of the Press and thA first appellant
was the Iess-ee and had removed the Press in the
bona fide exercise of his right as lessee. The apnel-
-!ants examined eight witnesses in support of thier
case.
--
The case of the prosecution hinged upon the
evidence of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu, when confronted with Ex. D-2, he denied his signature, and
stated evasively that he could not identify the
signatures of Govindachari and Appala Naidu. He
admitted, however, that .Appanna used to look
-after the Press after l!J53, though _ he said that he
used to visit the Press once in two or three months
before he sold it to P.W.l, and that the correspondence used to be macle in his name. He also stated
that he had purchased the Press from the· l\Iadras
Type Foundry Co., for Rs. !J,107/- but that the bills
were lost, and he added that they were taken away
along with the Press, when it was removed. The
case of the appellants rested upon the proof of the
8ignature of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu on Ex. D-2
and additionally, the proof of-- the signature of
Akkala Naidu, because if Akkala Naidu signed the
document in 194 7 and died some four years before
the present controversy started, there would be
good reason to think that a document of this
character could not be a fabricated one. The appellants examined a handwriting expert, Sri B. R. Sirigh
(D.W.8). He stated categorically that Ex.D-2 bore
the signature of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu. · The
signature of Akkala Naidu was p~oved by his son,
Sri Rangam. He identified the signature of his
father not only on that document but also on Ex.
D-3, the promissory note. - He also stated that his
father had died in 1951.
From thia material, the Additional District
a.nd Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, found that Ex- D-2
•
•
•
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
13
was not a forged document, as waR sug!l'.esterl, but
l!Jfl
was amply proved as genuine byP1tppa]a.Chandrudu
Sma.;Sany•s;
(D.W.4) and the combined evidenee of Sri Rangam
APP""'
\D. W. 3) and Sri B. R. Singh (D. VV:. 8).
He
Bodd,pslli
therefore, held that Pappala Chinna Ramadasu
J,.k.h"'i"m•Y•••
had no right to sell the Press in 195.5 to Boddepalli
Hid•ya11</lnh.J.
I..akshminarayana and that l,is connection with
the Press
had
effectively c,iased from
1953
even as a mere printer. It is unnecefisary to
examine whether this finding or the finding given
by the Judicial Second Class Mairistrate, Srikakulam,
who held othArwise, was the eo-rreet inforence from
the facts.
The learnP.d Judire of the High Court,
who heard the appeat agaii;st the :+CquittaJ, said
nothing about Ex. D-2.
Ac0<>rding to him, the
removal of the Press amounted to theft, even thougn
the appellants removed it undP.r a bona fide claim
of right.
In this statement of the law, the learned
Judge was, with respect, clearly in error.
This is
what the learned Judge observed :
"Further, to a charge of theft, the plea
that the property was removed under a bona fide
daim .of right would not avail. For example
a person who bona fide . believ·2s that the
fountain pen on his neighbour's desk is his
has no right in law to trespass into the neighbour's house and snatch away the pen without
the latter's consent."
The first of the statements is certainly not the law.
It is settled law that where a bona fide claim of
right exists, it can he a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft,
unless there be not only no legal right but no
appearance or colour of a legal ri!!ht. In 2 East
P.C. p. 659, the law was stated a long time
ago thus:
"If there he in the prisoner any fair
pretence of property of right, or if it be
brought into doubt at all, the court will direct
an acquittal."
1961
Swi"'ri Sanwui
Appa1aO
v.
Rotfrf,p11lli
l...4l·shmir.Mayana
Hiduyatullah J.
14
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
• ·
And according t-0 I Hale P.C. 509, the best evidence
is that the goods were tak9n quite openly. Tho
Jaw thus stated by East and Hale has not been
altered in m0dern times. There arc numerous
caB!'S in which Courts in India have recognised l•
lxma fi'.de claim crf right AA a defence to the charge
of theft. See Ratanlal law of Crimes 19th Ed.
p. 933.
We arc not concerned in this case with the
declaration under the Press and Registration of
Rooks Act.
A declared keeper of the Press is not
necessarily the owner thereof so as to be able to
confer title to the Press upon another. Tho ownership of the Prer~ ie a matter of the general law and
must follow that law. Whether Pappala Chinr•a
Ra.madasu was not only the declared keeper of the
PreRs but also its owner can only be eifectivcly
decided
hy the Civil Court. For purposes of
Criminal law, the evidence prima jacie pointed to
a
transfrr of the Press by Pappala Chinna
Ramadasu and Govindachari to Kuna Appals
Naidu.
The evidence prima facie alao established
that the appellants h1d taken possession of the
Press under a bona fide daim of right, and that, in
our opinion. was suffirient to dispose of tho present
cnse.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam, had rightly held that the matter was
for the decision of the Civil Court, and that this
was not a cnse of theft under the Indian Penal
Code, and had rightly directed the acquittal of the
appellants. The learned Judge of the High Court
considered the declaration
by Pappala Chinna
Ramadasu, which continued unchanged, as sufficient
to prove an offence of theft. In our opinion, in the
circ11mstanccs ancl in the light of the finding given
by the District and Sessions Judge with regard to
Ex. D-2, it was neceSEary to go further to seo
what. right Papp.ala Chinna Ramadaeu had to tho
Press at all. If thie had been considered, the
learned Judge would have seen ' that there was
some doubt the right of Pappa.la Cbinna Ramadaau
•
•
•
•
......
(I) S.CR.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
15
to
transfer the Press in 1955 to Boddepaili
Lakshminaraya.na, and further that . the defence
that the appellants took poBsession of the Press
under a bona. fide claim of right was a good defence
entitling them to an acquittal.
In the result, this appeal must mrceed. The
convictions of the appellants and the sentence's
passed on them are set aside, th('y are a.cquitted
and their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
The
fines, if realised, are ordered to be remitted.
Appeal alkiwed.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW GUJARAT)
v.
NARANDAS MANGIT-AL AGARWAL AND
ANOTHER
(K. N. W ANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Prohibition-Medicinal preparation with exce.s of alcoholIntoxicating e!fect-OA•nce under the Prohibition Act-- Burden
of proof-Board of Experts under tht Act-Consultation with,
if and when obligatory-Payment of excise i.uty to and licence to
export granted by Bhopal State-Validity nf conviction under
Bombay prohibition laws-Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949
(Bom. 25 of 1949), as amended by Bombay Act 26 of 1!;52,
ss. 6A, 11, 12, 13, and UA.
The respondents were charged with offences punishable
under ss. 65(a) and 66(l)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition
Act, 1949, for violating the provisions of ss. 12 and 13 of the
Act. The prosecution case was that the respondents brought
in their motor truck into the State of Bombay from the
adjoining State of Bhopal, bottles labelled Afrugmadasav,
and that the bottles did not contain genuine Mntgmadasav, an
Ayurvcdic preparation, but only intoxicating liquor, import
transportation and possession whereof without permit or
licence under the Act were prohibited. The Magistrate found
that the bottles contained 75.50% alcohol-much in excess of
the
normal
percentage
of alcohol
used
in
preparing
M,...,"'4daaav, accordin& to the standard Ayurvedic formulal96J
St.tJVari Satryasi
Apparao
v.
Boddepalli
LukJhminaroy3na
H:dn;·atu/lll/. J.
JP61
O:tober 6.