Queen-empress Vs. Bandhu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/461274
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnDec-31-1969
JudgeStraight, J.
Reported in(1886)ILR8All51
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentBandhu
Excerpt:
animal 'nullius proprietas' - bull set at large in accordance with hindu religious usage--appropriation of bull--act xlv of 1860 (penal code), sections 403, 410, 411. - straight, j.1. i am much indebted to munshi kashi prasad for taking so much pains to put the case for the accused man before the court. i entirely agree with what fell from the junior government pleader, that an animal of the kind to which this case has reference was not 'property' at the time of the alleged misappropriation, within the meaning of the indian penal code, for it was not only not the subject of ownership by any person, but the original owner had surrendered all his rights as its proprietor, and had given the beast its freedom to go whithersoever it chose. it was therefore 'nullius proprietas,' and as incapable of larceny being committed in respect of it as if it had been feroe naturoe.' i am not now concerned to determine whether cases may not occur in which the killing of such an animal would be an offence; but i have simply to decide whether the conviction of bandhu, under section 411, can be upheld. i do not think that it can be; and, setting aside the orders of the magistrate and the district judge, he will stand acquitted. if he has not found bail and is in custody he will be at once released; if he has, no further order will be necessary.
Judgment:

Straight, J.

1. I am much indebted to Munshi Kashi Prasad for taking so much pains to put the case for the accused man before the Court. I entirely agree with what fell from the Junior Government Pleader, that an animal of the kind to which this case has reference was not 'property' at the time of the alleged misappropriation, within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, for it was not only not the subject of ownership by any person, but the original owner had surrendered all his rights as its proprietor, and had given the beast its freedom to go whithersoever it chose. It was therefore 'nullius proprietas,' and as incapable of larceny being committed in respect of it as if it had been feroe naturoe.' I am not now concerned to determine whether cases may not occur in which the killing of such an animal would be an offence; but I have simply to decide whether the conviction of Bandhu, under Section 411, can be upheld. I do not think that it can be; and, setting aside the orders of the Magistrate and the District Judge, he will stand acquitted. If he has not found bail and is in custody he will be at once released; if he has, no further order will be necessary.