IN RE: KAKARLA NARASAYYA Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1952-11-32
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 13,1952

In Re: Kakarla Narasayya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sub -Divisional First Class Magistrate of Peddapur in C. A. No. 53 of 1951 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Additional Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Rajahmundry in C.C. No. 343 of 1930.
(2.) THE facts are : - - The complainant has purchased Musurumilli Bamboo Coupe No. 1 for the year 1949 -50, i.e., for the year ending 30 -6 -1950 for Rs. 5000/ - in auction held by the Forest Department and was working the Coupe through the men engaged by him. He was getting the stock of bamboos from the Coupe to Gokavaram and stocking them in the site of one Dasari Bulliah. This site was held under a lease of the accused from whom the complainant has taken it on an annual rent of Rs. 35/ - for the purpose of securing the bamboos therein. The complainant noticed that the stock in the depot was being diminished, having been misappropriated by the accused and so he asked his agent at Gokavaram to stock the bamboos in another site and accordingly on 5 -12 -1949 at 9 a.m. when 12 bandies of bamboos arrived from the Coupe and they were being directed towards the new site the accused interfered and threatened the cartmen and the agent and got the stock forcibly unloaded in the old yard and misappropriated them. Out of the 12 bandies, four bandies consisted of 748 plain bamboos and the remaining 8 bandies contained 2681 sugarcane bamboos and they were worth about Rs. 400/ -. The complainant is said to have reported this matter to the Forest Range Officer who in his turn reported the matter to the Station House Officer, Gokavaram. The Police did not investigate the offence. Hence the private complaint by the complainant.
(3.) THE case for the accused was that himself and the complainant were doing business conjointly, that though the contract stood in the name of the complainant he (accused) had a share therein by private understanding and that he did not commit the offence of theft.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.