In the case of theft if the property, which it was the thief's intention (as shown by the circumstances or by his admission) to take, consisted of a number of contiguous articles, which were reached by one and the same act of trespass or which were the subject of a single enterprise, the moving of each article in the course of removal of the whole bulk of property cannot ordinarily be considered to be a distinct theft. The transaction in such a case was single, although it may have been achieved in detail; and the fact that the spoil taken consisted of several things, whether belonging to the same or the different owners, does not necessarily break up the unity of the transaction. If, on the other hand, the property taken consisted of a number of articles so distantly or diversely situated as to require a distinct act of trespass or a distinct enterprise for the removal of each, the transaction should ordinarily be held to have been not single but complex, and its achievement to have involved the commission of more than one separate theft; e.g.-(a)A thief enters a house and removes one by one all the articles of value which he finds there. As all the property is got at by one and the same act of trespass, the theft is single although some of the articles may have belonged to friends of the owner of the house.(b)A thief goes to a threshing floor, where the grain of four cultivators is stored, and steals a little from every heap. Unless it is shown that he had distinct designs against the several owners, it is plain that there was but one act of thieving accomplished through one and the same trespass.(c)A thief snatches from a man's hand a bag containing articles belonging to several persons. The theft thus achieved by a single enterprise is not made multiple by the act that the things snatched had different owners.(d)A cattle-lifter drives off a herd of six head of cattle, being the bullocks of half a dozen separate cultivators, which were in the charge of a boy. This is a single act of theft, the enterprise being single; it is not six thefts because there were six owners.Note. - These instructions do not, however, in any way fetter the discretion of Magistrates vested in them by Section 235 of the Code with regard to the framing of separate charges or the holding of separate trials whenever it appears appropriate to do so.
