all these years. That apart, it is to be noted that the petitioners who are the accused did not even take all the mangoes but only took two baskets leaving behind a third to be taken either by the complainant or his licensee, the said Prabhakar Krishna Naik, and, therefore it is obvious that the petitioner took the said mangoes under a bona fide claim of right as the mangoes from property also belonged to them. The dispute between the complainant, as first informant and the petitioners as accused appears to be of civil nature between them. The petitioners have taken two baskets of mangoes under a bona fide claim of right, as stated facts disclose. Such taking away cannot constitute an offence of theft. It is well settled that a bona fide claim of right can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft.(See Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao (AIR 1962 SC 586). No useful purpose would be served by allowing such a prosecution to continue as chances of securing a conviction in such a case are very bleak, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others (supra). Continuing with the prosecution, is bound to cause harassment to the petitioners and waste precious judicial time of the Court. There is no useful purpose to be served. The ends of justice therefore require that the prosecution should be quashed.
