Kraków district court acquits drill borrower as withdrawal of permission remains unproven

The criminal division of a district court in Kraków acquitted Paweł Wrona of stealing a PLN 1,200 cordless drill, rejecting the State’s request for a conviction and penalty. The prosecution had not proved that permission to borrow the tool was withdrawn before he collected it.

The dispute was not about whether Wrona took the drill: collection on Friday and return on Sunday were established. The question was whether he collected it under an agreed loan or after the owner had cancelled that agreement.

The complete Friday message exchange showed Wrona asking to borrow the drill for shelving until Sunday. The owner’s reply was recorded in the judgment: “Yes. Take it after six.” The thread contained no written cancellation, and the court found no specific reason to doubt its authenticity.

That did not rule out a later oral cancellation. But the evidence reporting such a conversation failed to establish reliably when it happened or how clearly withdrawal of permission was communicated.

Witness 1’s admitted testimony reported that the owner saw Wrona collect the drill, alleged an afternoon oral cancellation and acknowledged its Sunday return. The judge treated this as an attributed account—not a separate statement from the owner—and noted the absence of independent support for the disputed conversation.

The court did not discount the account simply because the alleged cancellation was oral. Its decisive concern was the uncertainty over timing, weighed against direct written permission and a return consistent with the loan agreement. Collection and return alone proved neither an unauthorised taking nor criminal intent.

The prosecution had to prove the required elements of theft. Wrona did not have to establish every detail of his account to avoid conviction.

The State argued that the messages established only the original permission. A subsequent oral cancellation, if communicated before collection, could mean that the earlier agreement no longer authorised Wrona to take the drill.

The prosecution acknowledged that it had no independent proof of the alleged conversation. It sought conviction only if the court was satisfied that cancellation preceded collection and that Wrona had the required intent.

The defence maintained that Wrona borrowed the drill under the Friday agreement and returned it on time. It relied on the messages and challenged the lack of supporting evidence for the alleged withdrawal of permission.

The borrowing arrangement concerned a cordless drill for installing shelves in Kraków. Although an initially cropped screenshot left the conversation’s context incomplete, the complete Friday exchange was before the court and identified both the tool and the proposed Sunday return.

The acquittal does not establish that an oral cancellation was impossible or that cancellation must be written. It resolves the narrower question of proof: this record did not establish withdrawal before collection. The court made no monetary award.