STATE Vs. TIRATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur in a jury trial. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) THE complainant Inder Singh, formerly resided at Lyailpur in West Punjab (Pakistan) and carried on business in cloth. He used to purchase cloth through the agency of a firm called jhangiram Hukumchand carrying on business of 'pukka Arhatiyas' at Bombay. The firm of jhangi-ram Hukumchand was owned by three persons, namely, Hukumchand, now deceased, tirathdas, opposite party, and one Ram Chandra. The firm as 'pukka Arhatiyas' used to buy goods for their constituents from merchants at Bombay and used to make payment to the sellers for the purchases made by them. Sometimes the constituents would deposit money with the firm in advance to be accounted for later on and set off against future purchases. Once the complainant Inder Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with this firm, and interest was paid by this firm on this amount. After the partition of India the complainant settled down at kanpur. On 22nd July 1949 the complainant entrusted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Tirathdas, opposite party, to be sent to Bombay for being deposited in the said firm. An entry relating to this transaction was made by Tirath Das in the books of the complainant and it was to the following effect:

(3.) TIRATHDAS's defence was that the financing partner was Hukumchand and that Ram Chandra and he were working partners. The profits and losses were to be in the ratio of ten annas for hukum Chand, three annas for Ram Chandra and three annas for Tirath Das. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was handed over to Tirath Das at Kanpur was duly sent by him to his Bombay firm and credited to the complainant's account in the firm. The amount was deposited by the complainant because the money was lying idle with him and he wanted to earn interest on it, and that it was not trust money, that since Dewali of the year 1949 Tirathdas ceased to be a partner of the firm, and in January 1950 he joined another firm by the name of Lachmandas Asandas and that at the time when the demand is said to have been made in March 1950, he had ceased to be a member of the firm of Jhangiram Hukumchand. Tirath Das did not give any explanation as to why the firm Jhangiram Hukumchand had failed to return the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The charge against Tirathdas was that he having been entrusted with Rs. 10,000/- ''as agent of the complainant's firm" by the complainant and in the way of his business committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said sum by conversion thereof on 1-3-1950 by denying the receipt of it.