NITYANANDA ROY Vs. RASHBEHARI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of two offences under Section 406, Penal. Code under two separate counts. The "acts charged against him are that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 3 tolas and 5 annas of gold on 5-2-1951 and that similarly he committed the same offence In respect of a further quantity of 26 tolas and 9 annas of gold on 2-3-1951. The learned Magistrate has accepted the prosecution case and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for 4 months and 2 months respectively -- the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The proceedings were commenced on the complaint of one Rashbehari Ray who alleged that he was a goldsmith, carrying on business at Cuttack and that he used to get the articles of his trade manufactured by workmen in Calcutta of whom the petitioner was one. The petitioner is also related to the complainant, being his nephew. The complainant's case further was that he had entrusted 29 tolas 14 annas and 3 pies of gold on 2-3-1951, and that the ornaments manufactured with that gold were due to be delivered in about a fortnight's time. When, however, the complainant demanded delivery of the ornaments he was put off from time to time and ultimately, on 28-3-1951, the petitioner denied having received any gold from the complainant at any time at all. This story was slightly varied in the course of the evidence when the petitioner stated that 29 bharies 14 annas and 3 pies of gold had not been entrusted all at the same time but that out of the total quantity, 3 tolas and 5 annas had been entrusted on an earlier occasion, namely, on 5-2-1951.

(3.) In support of his case the petitioner (sic) relied upon a receipt alleged to have been granted by the petitioner at the time the gold had been delivered to him. There was some oral evidence as well, particularly, of a brother-in-law of the complainant who carries on the profession of a Dentist. The learned Magistrate relied principally upon the receipt which is Ex. 1 in the case and which was alleged by the prosecution to bear the signature of the petitioner.