HANMANT MURHAR DESHPANDE Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are by one H. M. Deshpande against his convictions under S.409 IPC by the Judical Magistrate, First Class, Ramdurg, which were confirmed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 20, 21 and 19 of 1970 respectively by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In regard to sentence, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of fine only.

(2.) The charges related to Rs.441-09, Rs.125-53 and Rs.18-48 paid by the villagers on various dates as re-payment of Tagavi loan to the petitioner, who was admittedly a Thalathi of Chinnapur Saza comprising the villages of Mudenur, Nandihal and Anegundi. It was the prosecution case that the pweitioner did not pay these amounts to the treasury for over seven months. Both the Courts below have accepted the prosecution case that the monies in question had not been credited by the petitioner to the treasury, for over seven months and the petitioner credited the same on various dates subsequently.

(3.) Mr. Mandagi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that temporary retention of money would not by itself amount to criminal breach of trust. As a general proposition this statement is correct. Before a person can be convicted under S.405 IPC it must be proved that there was an entrustment of property or dominion over property. Secondly it must be proved that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion by a person to his own use of that property or that there was dishonest use or disposal of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or that he wilfully suffered any other person to do so. Retention of property entrusted would amount to criminal breach of trust only if from the fact of retention of property entrusted, the second ingredient stated above, namely dishonest misappropriation or conversion etc. can be inferred. Even if a person was required under rules to deposit the amount entrusted in the treasury within a few days the failure to do so would not by itself amount to the offence of criminal breach of trust because in addition it must be proved that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion or dishonest use or disposal of that property. The element of dishonesty must also be proved. Sometimes a person may, due to negligence or forgetfulness, fail to deposit the money which may have been entrusted to him, in reasonable time. The mere failure to deposit the money would not, therefore, prove dishonesty and there must be other circumstances to prove the element of dishonesty. But there may be cases where it is possible to draw such an inference. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule to the effect that in no case retention would lead to an inference of misappropriation. An inference of misappropriation could be drawn depending on the particular facts of each case.