M.C.W.KAMDIA And Another vs SAJJAD HUSSAIN KHAN And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. The respondents were accused of committing theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the removal of a crop valued at Rs. 86,800. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal of a crop by the very individuals who had sown it could legally constitute the offence of theft. Upon review, the Court observed that it was undisputed that the respondents had sown the crop themselves. Consequently, the Court held that a serious question existed as to whether the ingredients of the offence of theft were satisfied in such circumstances. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order granting bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of the act and the ownership or possession of the property are critical considerations in determining the prima facie existence of a criminal offence like theft.
- Can an individual be charged with theft for removing a crop they personally sowed?
- Does the removal of a crop sown by the accused themselves constitute an offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order dated 19-1- 1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to be admitted to anticipatory bail.
2. The allegations against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are that they committed an offence under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code by committing theft of crop worth Rs.86,800. It is not disputed that the crop was sown by respondents Nos. l to 3 themselves. In the circumstances a serious question at the trial would arise whether they could be charged with the offence of theft for removing the crop sown by themselves. We, therefore, do not think that this a fit case for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.