9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining whether the offense disclosed is under Section 403 or Section 406 of the Penal Code. Analysis: The judgment was issued in response to a Rule questioning the sentence imposed on the accused, arguing that the offense disclosed falls under Section 403 and not Section 406 of the Penal Code. The case involved a complainant who was a goldsmith and an accused who borrowed ornaments for a marriage ceremony but failed to return them. The key argument was whether the accused's actions constituted criminal misappropriation under Section 403. The court examined the nature of entrustment and possession of property under Sections 403 and 405. It was established that in cases of criminal misappropriation (Section 403), the property must come into the possession of the accused in a neutral manner, while in cases of criminal breach of trust (Section 405), the property is entrusted to the accused. In this case, the ornaments were handed over to the accused in confidence for a specific purpose, indicating an entrustment relationship. The court concluded that the accused was entrusted with the ornaments and failed to return them as promised, constituting an offense under Section 406. Consequently, the Rule was discharged, and the accused was ordered to surrender to bail, serve the remaining sentence, pay a fine, and comply with the compensation order. Judges' Agreement: Both judges, Arthur Trevor Harries and Blank, concurred with the decision and agreed that the accused's actions amounted to a breach of trust under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust based on the manner in which the property is possessed by the accused. The court's analysis focused on the principles outlined in the Penal Code and previous legal precedents to determine the appropriate classification of the offense in question. The accused's failure to return the borrowed ornaments despite explicit promises constituted a violation of the trust placed in him by the complainant, leading to the dismissal of the Rule and upholding of the original sentence and compensation order.
|
