Removal of something may not amount to Stealing, if Dishonest Intention unproved, indicates Supreme Court.
Stolen goods not forbidden from bearing evidence.
Documents obtained from "illegal search and seizure", the Supreme Court has said "cannot be shut out from consideration as long as they are relevant to the matters in issue."
In a case involving Birla Corporation, Birla Buildings Limited, Govind Promoters Pvt Limited, Adventz Investment and Holdings Limited and others, the Supreme Court on 09 May 2019 held that "no “dishonest intention” or "wrongful gain” could be attributed" and that there was neither any “wrongful loss” to the appellants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 378 and 380 IPC.
The intention, said the judgement, under Section 24 IPC “dishonestly” must be to
cause “wrongful loss” to the other or to have “wrongful gain” for oneself.
"In determining whether a person has acted dishonestly or not, it is the intention which has to be seen." the judgement adds.
"... merely because documents have
been produced from one source or other, it cannot be said that documents have been dishonestly removed to obtain “wrongful
gain” to the respondents and cause “wrongful loss” to the appellant" the judgement reads.
Download Judgement Copy
Stolen goods not forbidden from bearing evidence.
Documents obtained from "illegal search and seizure", the Supreme Court has said "cannot be shut out from consideration as long as they are relevant to the matters in issue."
In a case involving Birla Corporation, Birla Buildings Limited, Govind Promoters Pvt Limited, Adventz Investment and Holdings Limited and others, the Supreme Court on 09 May 2019 held that "no “dishonest intention” or "wrongful gain” could be attributed" and that there was neither any “wrongful loss” to the appellants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 378 and 380 IPC.
The intention, said the judgement, under Section 24 IPC “dishonestly” must be to
cause “wrongful loss” to the other or to have “wrongful gain” for oneself.
"In determining whether a person has acted dishonestly or not, it is the intention which has to be seen." the judgement adds.
"... merely because documents have
been produced from one source or other, it cannot be said that documents have been dishonestly removed to obtain “wrongful
gain” to the respondents and cause “wrongful loss” to the appellant" the judgement reads.
Download Judgement Copy
No comments:
Post a Comment