AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Judge did not explain to the jury what is meant by theft as he was bound to do u/s 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further the
questions which he left to the jury, viz., (1) was the 1st prisoner in the field with honest or dishonest intentions? (2) was the 2nd prisoner there and
Was he recognized by the witnesses who say they recognized him?, were not sufficient even if answered unfavourably to the accused to justify a
conviction, for theft.
A further question arose viz., whether the accused has dishonestly removed the chalum. We set aside the verdict of the jury and direct a re-trial
according to law. The accused will remain on the bail already granted in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1909 till the disposal of the
case.