RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. List has been revised but no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this revision.

(2.) HEARD learned State counsel and perused the relevant papers.

(3.) IT appears that it was argued before the lower appellate court that it was the recovery of sales tax in execution of a civil court decree; hence the accused was not liable for any offence under Section 406, I. P. C. At the most he was liable for punish ment of offence under Sec. 172, I. P. C. and not under Sec. 406 I. P. C. The appellant relied on a case Hamam Singh v. Emperor. AIR 1918 All 406 (1), a copy of the decision is on record. I have considered the facts of that case, but that case law is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the property was not mis appropriated or converted to the use of the accused nor was used or disposed of in any manner contrary to the terms of the trust. But in the present case the property was given in the supurdgi of accused and he was directed to produce the attached property whenever demanded for auction. Several notices were sent to the accused but the property was neither produced before the court nor he complied with the orders. He dishonoured his undertakings to produce the property. On the other hand he denied to have received the property. The facts and circumstances clearly leads to inference that he had misappropriated the property in his own use with dishonest intention. The courts below did not appear to have com mitted illegality in awarding the conviction and sentence in affirming the same.