K C THOMAS Vs. AVIRAH VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is at the instance of the accused against whom the respondent had filed a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust with respect to a motor pump and accessories which he had entrusted with the accused. The learned Magistrate discharged the accused, having found that the prosecution had failed to make out a case, which, if unrebutted, would end in conviction. However, the revisional Court reversed this finding of the learned Sub-Magistrate, and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a specific direction that a charge might be framed against the accused and the case be tried and the property be disposed of according to the result of the case. It may incidentally be noted that when the order of discharge was passed, the accused had filed an appeal before the District Magistrate questioning the propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the property seized to be handed over to the complainant, and in reversal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the Dist. Magistrate had passed an order directing that the property might be handed over to the accused. It was subsequent to that, revision against the order of discharge was filed and the learned District Magistrate was pleased to allow the revision.

(2.) IN this revision the main question is whether an offence falling within the purview of criminal breach of trust has been made out. The facts to be stated are as follows : -The accused who is the complainant's brother's son-in-law had received from the complainant his motor pump with its accessories for pumping out water for his cultivation during the agricultural season 1970-71 agreeing to pay a hire of Rs. 1,200/- for that period. According to the complainant, this motor was to be returned to him after the reason was over, but in violation of the condition of entrustment the accused did not return the motor on the expiry of the stipulated period. The complainant goes to the extent of saying that actually on inquiry being made, he came to know that the accused had disposed of the motor in favour of a cooperative society of which P. W. 6 was the Secretary.

(3.) THAT the accused had received the motor on 7-9-1970 is a fact which admits of no doubt. However, the defence has a case that the entrustment was not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. According to the defence, a large sum of money was due from the complainant to the accused, and it was for that reason that the accused was allowed to keep possession and make use of the motor.