Court believed the findings of the trial magistrate that the appellant committed the theft and held him accountable.
On the appellant’s contention that this was a civil matter, court held that several acts or omissions constitute both civil and criminal wrongs and theft is one of them. A person cannot escape prosecution because his act was both civil and criminal.
On the issue that he never intended to deprive the complainant court looked at the conduct of the appellant who had no intention of returning the items to the complainant and held that the intention was to deprive the owner of his items.
On the alleged contradictions in the prosecution case court held that these would have been considered major but the appellant had admitted to such facts and held that they are very minor and not going to the root of the case.
On sentencing court held that the sentence was appropriate as the appellant had abused the position of trust.