Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ipc Ii
Ipc Ii
ACADEMIC SESSION:
2017 18
I would like to thank my Indian Penal Code professor, Mr. Malay Pandey for his
infallible support and guidance all through the course of this project. This endeavour
would not have been in its present shape had he not been there whenever I needed his
guidance.
Also I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the library staff of Madhu Limaye
Library for always helping me out with finding excellent books and material and for
their co operation.
Last but surely not the least- I would like to thank my fellow students for their timely
critical analysis of my work and special feedback that worked towards the betterment
of this work.
Title of the project
Bench Strength
The bench in the present case is a division bench comprising three judges namely, B.
Jagannadhadas, J., Syed Jafer Imam, J. and P. Govinda Menon, J.
Majority/ Minority
The honorable bench, in the present case, delivered a unanimous opinion in favour of
the Respondent i.e., the State of Rajasthan.
Facts:
The facts of the present case have been summarized in points below:
1. The present case deals mainly with Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code
which talks about theft. The alleged theft was that of an aircraft which
belonged to the government (Indian Air Force Academy). Two cadets,
named K. N. Mehra and M. Z. Phillips were undergoing training in the
Indian Air Force Academy in Jodhpur. Phillips had been discharged from
the Academy, on grounds of misconduct on 13th May, 1952. On 14th of May,
he was supposed to leave Jodhpur by train.
2. K. N. Mehra was due for flight in an aircraft called Dakota, along with Om
Prakash, a flying cadet as part of his training on 14th of May, 1952. The said
flight was to take off between 6 am and 6:30 am. On the said morning i.e.
14th May, Mehra and Phillips took off in a Harvard HT-822 instead of a
Dakota before the prescribed time at 5 am. They did this without any kind of
authorization and without observing any formalities which are pre-requisites
for an aircraft flight.
3. They landed at a place in Pakistan about 100 miles away from the Indo-
Pakistan border on the same day at around forenoon. On 16th May, 1953, at
around 7 am, they contacted one J. C. Kapoor who was military advisor to
the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi. They informed him
that they had lost their way and had to force-land in a field and that they had
left the plane on the same spot. They then, requested his help tp go back to
Delhi.
4. The Indian High Commissioner arranged for both of them to be sent back to
Delhi in another plane and also arranged for the Harward aircraft to be sent
back to Jodhpur. While they were on their way, the plane was stopped at
Jodhpur and the two of them, K. N. Mehra and M. Z. Phillips were arrested
and prosecuted for the offence of theft.
Law on the Point:
Issues Involved:
The main question of law faced by the court in the present case as appears from
questioning of the trial of the Magistrate was that whether Mehra, along with his co-
accused Phillips, stole the aircraft Harvard HT-822 and flew with it to Pakistan with
dishonest intention. It was to be found whether the accused would be held liable for
the offence of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.
The facts of this case are very clear and untouched by ambiguity. Not much careful
scrutiny is required by any person to draw out the counters. The accused, K N Mehra,
along with M. Z. Phillips stole away the aircraft Harvard HT 822 and flew away with
it to Pakistan with dishonest intention.
The argument that the defence took was Mehra went to the aerodrome at the usual
time with Phillips and flew the aircraft for sometime. Due to bad weather and
visibility they turned the aircraft back to what they thought was the Jodhpur base.
Upon finding the petrol near exhaustion, they force-landed on a field which, on
enquiry, they came to know was in the Pakistan territory. It has been said by the
learned counsel for the appellant, that Kapoor, the military advisor to the Indian High
Commissioner in Pakistan himself gave evidence that the accused wanted to fly back
to Delhi with a view to contact the higher authorities there. The main question to be
determined in this scenario was whether the flight was an intentional one to Pakistan.