Parmeshwar Singh vs Empress, On The Prosecution of W. A. Cox

We think that the Sessions Judge has misapprehended the position of the parties, and the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioners for theft cannot consequently be sustained. There appears to have been some agreement between the parties in regard to cultivation and the crop raised on certain lands. The lands were admittedly the lands of the accused and they had been used by the accused for the purposes of growing Indigo for a factory. The indigo crop having failed, the parties naturally turned their attention to using the lands for other purposes. Mr. Cox, the indigo planter, explains that the first proposal was that the tenants, that is to say, the accused and others, should plant rice and give the factory half the produce, and then the factory would pay the tenants the full rate as allowed for indigo, that is, Rs. 16 per bigha. The tenants were unable to accept these terms as they had no seed or money for the purposes of cultivation. Thereupon they agreed that Mr. Cox would plant rice on the land, at the factory expense, and take the whole crop paying them Rs. 16 a bigha. It seems to us that on this agreement the crop remained the property of the tenants as grown on their lands and the factory agreed paying the tenants Rs. 16 per bigha for it; and if it should so happen that the tenants cut and carried away the crop, they would not be guilty of theft, though a suit would lie for damages for breach of contract. The crop, as we understand it, was the property of the accused, which the factory agreed to purchase at Rs. 16 per bigha.

We therefore think that the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and we direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded. The conviction under sec. 143 will also be set aside, as the common object of the assembly was stated to have been theft, which, as has already been stated, could not, under the circumstances, have been committed.