RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1378 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur and the appellant in C.A.No.86 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam. He was charged and tried for an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months together with a fine of Rs.1,000 carrying a default sentence. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed.

(2.) I heard Mr. R. Balakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Mr. R. Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate on the criminal side for the respondent. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that on the facts and circumstances available in this case, at best it can be said that entrustment of the money is only established and the subsequent essential ingredients of the dishonest intention to appropriate the money for the benefit of the accused is not yet established. The learned counsel would further argue that as the entrustment of the money to the accused is not at all disputed and the fact that the money was accounted for only one week later by itself, would not amount to the accused committing the offence under section 409 of the IPC. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the element of dishonest intention on the part of the accused is totally absent in this case. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate argued that both the courts below on appreciating the evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the accused dishonestly misappropriated a portion of the money entrusted to him and therefore there is no scope to interfere in the Judgment of the Courts below.

(3.) ON the face of these materials, the question that falls for consideration is whether the accused had any dishonest intention on his part in retaining the sum of Rs.1,110.90 with him which was established to be the undisbursed money entrusted to him. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this context, brought to my notice two Judgments, one is that of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the other is that of the Bombay High Court, in support of his contention that mere entrustment and delay in accounting for the entrusted property without there being any further dishonest intention cannot be itself amount to an offence under section 409 of the IPC. The first judgment is that of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana , AIR 1977 SC 1766 :1977 Crl. L.J. 1158 wherein it has been held as follows: -