Subudhi Rantho and Others vs Balaram Padhi (deceased)

This is not the case of a farm labourer or cultivator for wages, nor that of a person entitled to the crops jointly with others as partners. It is the

case of an ordinary ryot in a zemindari holding on a varam tenure. Until the delivery by the tenant to the zemindar of the share of the crop payable

to the latter, the possession of the whole crop, inclusive of such share, is clearly with the tenant. This being so, the removal of even the whole crop

by the tenant is not a taking of anything out of the possession of the zemindar. Consequently the first element in the offence of theft is wanting. But

the removal, if dishonest or fraudulent constitutes an offence u/s 424 of the Penal Code even if, as contended for the petitioners, the zemindar

acquires no property in the share due to him until delivery--a point on which it is unnecessary for us to express an opinion in the present case.

None of the unreported cases to which cur attention has been drawn conflict with this view. If the removal was for the purpose of , protecting the

ryot from injury or damage to the crops owing to the zemindar''s delay or refusal to perform his part with reference to the harvesting and division of

the crop. such removal would of course not be dishonest. But in this case it has been proved that the crops were removed dishonestly, and we are

not prepared to say that that finding is not well-founded. The result is that we alter the conviction from theft u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, into one

u/s 424 of the Penal Code, leaving the conviction u/s 143 to stand. We see no reason to interfere with the sentences.