Municipal Court in Sarajevo denies theft finding over drill taken after ambiguous reply

The Municipal Court in Sarajevo denied the prosecution’s request to find Adnan Selimović guilty of theft after he took a workshop drill overnight. It also rejected the requested BAM 350 fine and ordered no payment.

The dispute turned not on whether Selimović took the drill—he returned it the next morning—but on whether he knew he lacked permission. A brief reply to his borrowing request could mean either agreement to an overnight loan or an instruction to discuss it the following day.

The strongest evidence was the expanded message exchange, supplied in matching form by both sides. The owner first said the drill was needed at the workshop and asked Selimović to ask again tomorrow. Selimović then requested it only overnight, promising its return before work. The owner’s final reply was affirmative-sounding but referred to the following morning.

Both interpretations were plausible, the court found. The earlier refusal supported the prosecution; the specific overnight request and the response supported Selimović’s account. Matching copies established confidence in the wording, not certainty about its meaning.

Failing to clarify the reply did not, by itself, prove that Selimović knew permission had been withheld. His next-morning return was consistent with his account, although it did not conclusively establish his understanding when he took the drill. The court also stressed that his account came through submissions, not independent testimony, and that no direct explanation from the owner was in the record.

The monetary request failed separately for lack of support. Neither the receipt said to establish the drill’s value nor records supporting lost work and wages were before the court. Selimović’s failure to offer competing figures did not relieve the prosecution of proving its own.

The prosecution argued that the earlier refusal remained in force and that the final reply postponed discussion rather than granted permission. It said Selimović’s failure to seek clarification demonstrated knowing wrongdoing.

The defence acknowledged the ambiguity and accepted that clarification would have been preferable. But it argued that Selimović’s thanks and timely return fitted his understanding of an agreed loan, leaving the required knowledge unproved.

The prosecution described its BAM 350 request as comprising BAM 240 for the drill, BAM 90 for lost work and BAM 20 related to workers’ pay. The defence challenged the absence of supporting records.

The drill belonged to a repair workshop and was valued in the case record at about BAM 240. A cropped screenshot omitted the earlier messages, but the court considered the fuller exchange rather than relying on that incomplete view.

The decision does not establish that the owner intended to grant permission. It establishes that the prosecution did not prove knowing lack of permission on this record. The order resolves only the request and evidence presented at the hearing.