Pune magistrate court acquits man of drill theft, denies request for its return

The criminal magistrate court in Pune acquitted Nikhil Bendre of stealing a cordless drill, dismissing the State of Maharashtra’s criminal claim and denying its request for an order requiring him to return the drill through the court.

The dispute turned on the scope of a lending agreement: did permission to borrow an unnamed tool cover this particular drill? The court found that the State had proved neither an unauthorized taking nor dishonest intent. It did not, however, find that Bendre had established his claim of permission.

The complaint account said that permission had not been given to take the drill, while acknowledging an earlier discussion about borrowing tools. The court treated that account as meaningful evidence, but not as resolving what the discussion authorized. The account also acknowledged that the collection had not been witnessed.

Both parties described WhatsApp messages recording a request for a tool and agreement to lend one. Crucially, the actual messages were not presented in evidence. Their agreed description established some lending agreement, but could show neither that it included the drill nor that it excluded it.

The described later exchange—a request for the drill’s return and Bendre’s offer to return it the next day—also left gaps. Without the exchange itself or its context, it did not establish permission at the time of collection or dishonest intent. Delay alone was insufficient.

The State acknowledged that it had no eyewitness to the collection or independent proof resolving permission. Applying the requirement that every criminal element be supported by reliable evidence, the court concluded that the remaining uncertainty could not be shifted onto Bendre to disprove.

The State argued that the complaint specifically denied approval to take this drill. It maintained that agreement to lend an unnamed tool did not establish permission for that item, while conceding that the return exchange alone proved neither unauthorized taking nor dishonest intent.

Bendre said he borrowed the drill for shelf work and kept it longer than intended. He relied on the described lending agreement and his offer of next-day return.

The defence also invoked Witness 1’s alleged recollection and lack of notice. The court found no supporting account from Witness 1 and no specific evidence establishing a notice issue. Neither submission determined the outcome.

Bendre’s account was that he collected the drill after work and missed the intended return the following evening because the shelf job ran late. The allegation concerned whether that collection was theft rather than borrowing followed by delay.

The complaint account appeared repeatedly in the record, but the court clarified that these were copies of the same account, not independent witnesses. The decision rests on the limits of the prosecution’s proof; it does not affirmatively establish consent. No monetary award was made.