RAVUNNI MENON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Malappuram under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 215/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar. THE charge against him was that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,636-2-0 entrusted to him in his official capacity as Adhikari of Kuttipuram Amsom between 24th November 1954 and 21st January, 1955.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. THE petitioner who was the permanent Adhikari of Naduvattom Amsom was also the acting Adhikari of Kuttipuram Amsom from 1-111954 till 1-7-1955.

(3.) THE Learned Judge, however, pointed out that dishonesty may be proved by evidence or may be presumed from circumstances and that the case was not one of a public servant not depositing the amount within a particular time fixed or within a particular time according to the departmental rules. We are unable to accept this as an authority for the position that in all cases of criminal misappropriation the prosecution must prove by direct evidence that the money was used in a particular way by the accused. THE learned judge has indicated that dishonest intention in such cases may be inferred from circumstances. This decision was cited in a later case before the same court in Karnam Siddappa v. State of Mysore (AIR. 1958 Mysore 82) in support of an argument that mere delay in returning the money was not a circumstance to justify an inference of criminal misappropriation. Das Gupta, c. J. observed: "in my opinion, it is not possible to hold that extreme view which was propounded by Sri Krishnamurthy before me It is true that normally mere retention is not such a circumstance from which there can be an inference that there has been misappropriation. 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. In other words in my opinion whether or not an inference of misappropriation from the fact of retention would be drawn would depend on the particular facts of each case. "