RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. MUTHURAMA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 (SubMagistrate and Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore in C.C. No. 108 and C.A. No. 66 of 1924) for criminally misappropriating an agricultural engine valued at Rs. 2,000. Admittedly he borrowed this engine under Exhibit A. from his relation Muthurama Reddi, P.W. 1, who says that he was looking after it for the real owner Muthuveera Reddi, P.W. 4. The petitioner says that he also had a lease of the engine from Muthurama Reddi, Ex. II, which the Lower Appellate Court seems prepared to concede, para. 4. The alleged breach of trust was (he sale of this engine by petitioner to his aunt, the wife of Muthurama Reddi's brother, D.W. 1. This witness says that the engine is family property. He is disbelieved but unless the Lower Courts accepted some theory of a family quarrel, it is difficult to understand why they inflicted such paltry sentences. The Sub-Magistrate fined the petitioner Rs. 100 which the Sub- divisional Magistrate reduced to fifty. If a man criminally misappropriates property of another worth Rs. 2,000 it is not an extenuating circumstance to plead that he and his victim are closely related; the extenuating circumstance would be that there has been no real misappropriation.

(2.) This is the point taken in this petition. Petitioner was given dominion over the property by Muthurama Reddi and it is urged he has not converted it to his own use, or disposed of it by selling it tg his aunt, a mere paper transaction; nor has he caused any wrongful loss to its owner Muthuveera Reddi for whom the engine is still available. No one complains that the aunt has suffered wrongful loss.

(3.) The question for determination may be pinned to illustration (b) of Section 405, Indian Penal Code. If A sells the furniture by a deed of sale to B but does not remove it, and if B makes no complaint, can Z complain that there has been criminal breach of trust?