K.N. Mehra vs. the State of Rajasthan (1957)

This article is written by Arnisha Das. The article discusses the critical offence of theft and its severity in India. It further explains the terms ‘intention’ and ‘dishonestly’ and its reciprocal relation in satisfying the severity of any theft. Delving deep into the facts and illustrations, it will present a perspective of the landmark case of K. N. Mehra vs. The State of Rajasthan.

Theft is a culpable offence that goes beyond losing individual property. Under the criminal law, there are several prosecutions of theft. One of the important cases that highlighted the crucial question of the nuisance of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is K. N. Mehra vs. The State of Rajasthan (1957). In this case, the facts presented a puzzling situation where Mehra and Philips, two cadets under training at the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur took an unauthorised flight, venturing far beyond the designated training area. The incident led to their ultimate detention and penalty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of theft of the cadets. 

In everyday life, theft appears clear-cut – someone takes something that does not belong to them. However, the legal definition in the Indian Penal Code covers a layer of complexity over the concept. Section 378 lays down the five essential elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish theft as an offence. These elements open up the very simple concept of “stealing” and go into the very nature of the property, the rights of the owner, the intention of the accused and the physical movement of the property.

Download Now

For example, there could be a wallet left on a bench in a park. Picking it up might seem like an innocent act, but the legalities can be murky and the repercussions, if one decides to keep the wallet and its contents to himself. The wallet is a movable item, so the fact of picking it up supports the aspect of taking, which is one of the essential ingredients of the theft. When the theft is done, the issue of ownership gets affected. If the person meant to return the wallet to the rightful owner, he has not committed a theft. However, if he takes the wallet out with the ‘dishonest intention’ of keeping the money and leaves the wallet, then he has crossed the line. 

A mere desire to take away something is not enough. This must be accompanied by the ‘moving’ of such property. The current case revolves around the contrasting narrative that their intention from the beginning was simply to take a flight for training or cross-country purposes. In this article, we will delve into the insights of the offence of theft and the concept of intention under the Indian law relying upon the landmark case of K N Mehra vs. The State of Rajasthan.  

  • Case Name: K N Mehra vs. State of the Rajasthan
  • Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1955
  • Equivalent Citations: AIR 1957 SC 369; [1957] 1 SCR 623; 1957 SCC 192; 1957 ALL. L. J. 669; (1957) 1 MAD LJ (CRI) 308; 1957 SCJ 386
  • Acts Involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Constitution of India Act, 1949 
  • Important Provisions: Sections 23, 24, 378, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India Act, 1949  
  • Court: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 
  • Bench: Justice B. Jagannadha Das, Justice P. Govinda Menon, and Justice Syed Jaffer Imam.
  • Petitioner: K. N. Mehra 
  • Respondent: State of Rajasthan 
  • Judgement Date: 11th February 1957

In 1952, two training cadets named K.N. Mehra and M.Z. Phillips took a Harvard H.T. 822 aircraft without due permission from the authorities of the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. A day prior to the incident, i.e. 13th May 1952, Phillips was dismissed from the academy for breaking the rules of conduct. The next day, on 14th May, Mehra was receiving navigator (a person who helps pilots use instruments and maps) training for which he was scheduled to take a Dakota flight, along with another flying cadet, Om Prakash. Philips was in the process of departing as a result of his release from the training. 

Meanwhile, all of a sudden, Mehra and Phillips boarded not a Dakota, but a Harvard H.T. 822 and initiated a flight upon blatant disregard of the rules. These flights, which were not regularised for staying more than 20 miles from the airfield took an egregious turn to the land of Pakistan, crossing the boundary of the Indo-Pakistan border by 100 miles, infringing the mandates of the established regulations. Further, the departure of their flight at around 5 a.m. earlier than the authorised take off between 6 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. constituted a complete infringement of the rules and raised serious questions about their actions. The pre-flight procedures were mandatory and Mehra and Phillips had inexplicably landed in a territory of Pakistan, roughly one hundred miles from the Indo-Pakistan border. 

Two days after the incident occurred, Mehra and Phillips presented themselves before the military advisor of the Indian High Commissioner at Karachi and implored assistance in facilitating their return to Delhi. Subsequently, the authorities of the Indian High Commissioner expediently arranged an alternative flight for their repatriation to India as well as the aircraft engine through which they landed. During their return flight on 17th May to Delhi, the aircraft made a stopover at Jodhpur, where both of the cadets were arrested therein by the authorities for the allegations of commission of the offence of theft of the property belonging to the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur.

Firstly, proceedings against them were held in the Trial Court of Jodhpur, where they were found guilty of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and condemned to eighteen months of imprisonment with a fine. Thereafter, the revision petition in the Rajasthan High Court further upheld the conviction order made by the Trial Court without any modification. Aggrieved by the verdicts of both the Courts, the petitioner finally appealed in the Supreme Court of India for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the final appeal in the Supreme Court was initiated by the appellant, K. N. Mehra, alone.

The crucial issues that appeared in this dispute are:-

  1. Were the flying cadets entitled to take such property under the training of the academy without sufficient permission from the authorities and did it amount to the wrongful loss of the property?  
  2. Did the appellant possess any ‘dishonest intention’ during taking off the aircraft from the beginning and such a commission was authorised by the authority by any chance?
  3. Does the gravity of the facts and evidence constitute the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

The following are arguments by both the appellant and respondent’s counsels based on the legal provisions and precedents in the case at issue:-


The learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Jai Gopal Sethi and Shri B.S Narula, have made their stance by presenting the following contentions:-

  • The counsels for the appellant argued that the appellant, K. N. Mehra, and his partner, M. Z. Phillips, were cadets under training in the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. Thus, the liability of their actions can be condoned as a matter of fact they being young students of 22 years, in a manner of “thoughtless prank” depicted such actions, which resulted in such an accident.
  • Secondly, the appellant in their endeavour to prove that Mehra was not guilty, claimed that the trainee pilot status of Mehra was the reason that he had the right to fly the plane. The basis of their argument is the idea of ‘implied consent’ which relates to the “moving” of an aircraft as written in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, they maintain that such acts make the ‘dishonest’ intention invisible, which is a needed element for the proof of the crime of theft.
  • The appellant asserted that both the partners had flown for some time, however, in the flight after a short while due to obscure visibility in the bad weather, they lost their way and turned towards the way to Pakistan. Though their effort was to return to the territory they previously were amongst the red light of the fuel tank, they somehow landed in a territory of Pakistan, 100 miles away from the border.
  • No sufficient facts could be there to ratify their desire to land in a territory far beyond the legitimate area of the aerodrome. Even the judgement of the Trial Court was of the view that the intention of the two cadets to go to Delhi was not ‘beyond the realm of possibility’. 
  • Further, the appellant argues, after cross-checking with the military adviser, J. C. Kapoor, it was found that they had lost their way and were force-landed in Pakistan and wished to go back to Delhi. They even did not carry any belongings with them, which makes clear that they neither had any dishonest intention at the time of taking or moving the object to Pakistan or seeking for employment thereof or any other purpose.


The counter-arguments made by the respondent’s counsels, Shri R. Ganpathy Iyer, Shri Porus A. Mehta and Shri B. H. Dhebar, were the following:-

  • The counsels stated that the consequences of the acts of the flying cadets brought about a “wrongful loss” of the property to the legally entitled, which is the authority of the Air Force Academy. Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code states that, when a person is ‘kept out’ or deprived of his property for a specific time, he is at the wrongful loss of the property. The other person, who had done the offence is deemed to have done so with a dishonest intention, as such deprivation amounts to a wrongful gain to him and a wrongful loss to the other person.
  • Further, the defence argued that the authorities, checking the facts and evidence, were of the opinion that the intent behind their actions was undeniably bad. The early departure without permission, together with the outright violation of the rules, all substantiated that it was a deliberate act that went beyond the limits of authorised flight operations. Besides, their secret landing in Pakistan and the later story still made everyone suspicious of their supposed innocence. The stated reason of the applicants for taking refuge and seeking employment in Pakistan was the strength of the evidence in the case against them.
  • The cadets intentionally took the flight for the purpose of going to Pakistan and seeking employment there, which becomes clear through many instances before and after the take-off. The fact that they left with a Harvard H.T. 822, instead of a Dakota in advance of the scheduled timing devoid of any authorised permission, expresses their intention. Even after reaching Pakistan, they were only informed about their mistake of landing after two days landing makes this contention even stronger.
  • Phillips, the other cadet, was only dismissed from the academy a day before the incident out of misconduct. The next day morning, he was about to take a train from Jodhpur, however, somehow lifted the aircraft with Mehra. Though no evidence was there proving Phillips received training as a navigator, he knew how to fly a plane. Reportedly, they did not sign the flight authorisation book and form no. 700 before starting their flight, which was a clear violation of rules for them. 
  • In case there were some faults in the engine, the commanders would have got the attention and sent radio signals for immediate rescue; however, there was no response from the cadets of the same. Further, the counterclaim of the prosecution is that the flight was airworthy, thus, no such incidents should have taken place at all.
  • The clarification that no belongings were taken before taking off from India was not without a cause. The authorities believe this was totally in their plan to execute the goal. Further, Kapoor’s affirmation that they were lost and request him to send them back to Delhi instead of Jodhpur raises substantial doubt about their commission of theft and that they might get caught if landed in Jodhpur. 
  • Overall, their aim to go to Pakistan without the consent of the higher authorities was factual and the subordinate courts were also of the proposition for convicting them under the trial of Section 379 of the IPC. Although, the Trial Court quoted that their journey towards Delhi ‘was not beyond the realm of possibility’, it was only to give effect to the sentence. 

The important provisions that were discussed in this case are the following:-

Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 encompasses the definitions and punishment for criminal offences, namely theft, dacoity, robbery, extortion, cheating and other aggravated crimes under Chapter XVII of the Code which deals with the offences against property. Theft, in general, refers to the taking of any property of the lawful owner without the consent of the owner for some private purpose. However, Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘theft’ as: 

Whoever, with an intention, to move any movable property out of the possession of the rightful owner dishonestly without the consent of the property owner and moves such property for such taking has committed theft.”

In this way, there are five essential elements that can be obtained from such a definition. They are:-

Dishonest Intention

Whenever any person is committing a theft, he is doing it with the intention of gaining the property without the authorised permission of the legal owner. In doing so, he is depriving the rightful owner to enjoy his property for such criminal intention. According to Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code, an act is purported to be done dishonestly when the criminal has deprived the victim of something to wrongfully gain something causing the victim to wrongfully lose the exact thing. Section 23 says ‘wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’ as anything which signifies wrongfully retaining some property of the owner and, hence, the loss or absence of the same property of the owner.

In this case, the cadets, Mehra and Phillips, had taken the aircraft, which is otherwise used for training purposes to accomplish their cross-country exercise. This has, in turn, caused the Air Force authority a temporary loss of their property and temporary gain to the wrongdoers.

Movable Property

Movable property as per Section 22 of the IPC means any corporeal property, except land, building, or any other thing attached permanently to the earth. Thus, theft is not only tangible but also the ones that have no relation to the earth. For instance, money, books, electronic devices, etc are movable in nature. 

In the present case, the aircraft, Harvard H.T. 822, which was taken away by the two cadets is a movable property. 


There is a difference between possession and ownership. If someone has possession of some property, he does not necessarily have to become the owner. Someone can be the owner of a particular property, but he may assign or gift the property to some other person. So, in the case of theft, it is immaterial whether the victim or the person from whom the offender took the property is the owner or just an occupier. 

The aircraft was owned by the Indian Air Force Academy, but subsequently, it was carried out from their possession illegally by the offenders from the hangar.


Consent is an essential element of theft. If consent does not exist between the owner and offender in carrying out the theft, then the object of theft is fulfilled. According to Section 378, there must be an absence of consent of the owner for committing an offence of theft at any point in time. 

Here, the cadets did not seek any permission from the authority or did not complete any formalities mandatory for moving the property, i.e., the aircraft, while displacing it.

Moving of Property

To accomplish the commission of theft, there must be some moving of property. In the case of movable property, merely touching the property is not enough without making an effort to move it somewhere else from the original place or position. 

Here the flying cadets took the aircraft beyond the authorised zone of the aerodrome, which completed this element of theft.   

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code

The penal provision for the offence of theft is given in the IPC under Section 379. Where all the elements are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings against an accused of theft, the offender gets punishment under this section.

Section 379 entails the punishment for theft in the following way —

“Any theft shall be punishable under this section by up to three years in prison, or fine, or both.” 

As a consequence of the severity of any theft, the punishment can vary based on personal or physical injury or any other factor examining the circumstances of the incident or from the person breaking the law.

The three-judge Supreme Court Bench, consisting of Justice B. Jahannadha Das, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, and Justice P. Govinda Menon found that, considering all the relevant facts produced before them, it was expedient to conclude that, initially their intent was to move to Pakistan. There was sufficient evidence submitted by the prosecution that their aircraft was taken without any contact with the authority, amounting to the offence of theft. However, the question that the flight was exploited for dishonest purposes from the beginning was harder to infer. 

The Court considered whether there were enough facts to prove that the wrongful gain and wrongful loss were intentional. It set forth that the statute of the Indian Penal Code distinguishes between intending a particular result and merely having the anticipation that it might occur. In this case, the court found no ambiguity in the respondent’s argument that the unauthorised use of the aircraft by the cadets was intentional and inference could be drawn from facts and circumstances of the case and not by any presumption. 

The Court also construed that ‘larceny’ under English law denotes any temporary loss or gain of the instrument or property for one’s own purpose. If the incident of moving the aircraft away from the authority’s administration was done with dishonest intention, then it eliminates the rights over the personal property of the proprietor. Thus, it is confirmed that their act was ab initio done with a dishonest intention. In that instance, the Hon’ble Court had drawn some precedents of Queen Empress vs. Sri Churn Chungo (1893), and Queen-Empress vs. Nagappa (1893). In these cases, it was proved that the natural consequences of an act do not necessarily imply intent. However, the intention and knowledge of the likely outcome strengthen the need for clear evidence in cases of alleged theft or dishonest actions.

The Court found that the purpose of the flight was to go to Pakistan. From the outset, various regulations were breached, indicating their dishonest intention from the beginning. The court laid down that the situation differs from a situation where an authorised flight is exploited for dishonest purposes mid-course, where the initial dishonest intention is harder to infer. Thus, there was no ambiguity in seeing the facts and circumstances as true and no reason to interfere with the conviction of theft by the Courts below under Section 379.

Further, the Court emphasised that the legal fiction that every person must be taken to intend that the natural consequences of their acts are not recognised as penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code citing precedence of the S. Vullappa And Ors. vs. S Bheema Row (1917) case. In the present case, the intentionality of the wrongful gain and loss was clear and did not rely on such fiction. The court concluded with the view that the actions constituted the crime of theft, upholding the conviction of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Finally, considering the punishment given by the Trial Court to the appellant of eighteen months of imprisonment along with 750 rupees fine, and four months additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the Hon’ble Supreme Court spared the appellant’s sentence to the already served period of imprisonment. In view of the already lapsed four years from the commission of the offence, the Court adjudicated that the appellant was on bail and had already served a sentence of eleven months and twenty-seven days of sentence. So, the Hon’ble bench of the Supreme Court altered it to become of the same duration, as the appellant had served and dismissed the appeal.      

Critical analysis of the case of K.N. Mehra vs. the State of Rajasthan (1957)

The judgement of the case specifically expounds the two nuanced terms, ‘intention’ and ‘dishonestly’ in an individual’s breach of regulations while committing theft. Here the commission of theft occurred when the two bonafide cadets of the Indian Air Force Academy were flying the aircraft without permission from the authority for the purpose of going to Pakistan. A theft or any other criminal offence is combined by two important elements. These are respectively ‘mens rea’ or the mind behind an offence and ‘actus reus’ or the actual act of the crime. It signifies the requisite elements of theft, which consist of both the elements, ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’, summing up the unauthorised act of misappropriation of property. The judgement also deals with the compoundable element of theft as an offence while suggesting a lower level of gravity in crime within the hierarchy where the offence lies, though it does not rely solely on the negotiable nature of the offence to endorse the degree of the offence.

It can be further inferred from the judgement that the measure of severity cannot be limited to whether an offence attracts a penalty, whether it can be aggregated or whether it aggravates or mitigates another offence. On the contrary, it focused on the understanding of the intention and effect of the crime concerned. This brings the argument that there is a difference between the legal classification of an offence and its relative severity as determined in the judgement. 

A criminal intent (mens rea) is a necessary tool to evaluate a wrongful act. The core essence was the irrelevance of legal fiction on the application of natural consequences with the way a guilty act (actus reus) is performed, where it is established through substantial evidence to determine whether the acts were intentional or not. Thus, it can be deduced that as long as there is clear evidence of the perpetrator’s premeditated and unlawful conduct, the manner in which the crime was committed does not matter. The modification of the sentence, thus, considering the circumstances strictly adheres to the proportionality of the intent and culpability.

The overall judgement is based on the general principles of justice and disclosure of the law. It legitimates the importance of judicial decisions in the sphere of law, where there is an issue of compoundability of theft as an offence. Also, it emphasises the need to maintain public trust in faith in the law as per the constitutional frameworks. It exemplifies that the consequences of criminal conduct are prescribed in the real nature and extent of the offence, which is more than mere classifications. Such an extensive analysis is for going a long way in restoring the confidence of people to demand transparency and accountability to discharge duties. It also brings about a sense of legal and ethical considerations when there is no genuine defender of rights. It appreciates the grey area that could exist in regard to offences that have a compoundable element in it.

How does the Indian Penal Code differentiate between intent and anticipation of theft cases?

The main difference is internationally planning to achieve a specific result and merely predicting or expecting it to happen. In the case of K. N. Mehra vs. The State of Rajasthan (1957), the Supreme Court found that the theft was accompanied by clear evidence, thus, the simple prediction did not apply here.

How does compoundability influence the treatment of theft as an offence?

Theft is a compoundable and non-bailable offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It provides a measure of flexibility in a particular case being dealt with. This also means that the victim is provided with the option to solve the problem by going through all the stages of trial through compensation for a committed action or through an apology.

What are the factors determining the severity of theft as a criminal offence?

The severity of theft as a criminal offence is determined by many factors under Section 378 of the IPC, such as the value of the stolen property, the offender’s criminal history, and the circumstances of the crime. There can be potential penalties or losses faced by the accused if convicted.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *