KAMESHWAR LAL Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800 on conviction for an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. THE facts are that a rent suit was instituted against Uttim Gorain. THE latter, in support of his defence in that suit, entrusted the petitioner, who is a pleader's clerk, with three unregistered sale deeds to be filed in Court. THE documents were filed and, after the suit was disposed of the Court returned the documents to the petitioner on the implied understanding that they were to be delivered to Uttim Gorain. THE latter, however, filed a complaint stating that they had not been delivered to him, inspite of a written notice being sent to the petitioner, to which he received no reply. THE defence of the petitioner was that he had in fact returned the documents to Uttim Gorain. THE sole question that arose for decision, therefore, was whether this defence was true, or whether the allegation of Uttim Gorain that the documents had not been returned to him was true. On a consideration of the evidence the Courts below have accepted the case for the prosecution. It has been found that there was no bad feeling between the petitioner and Uttim Gorain, which might serve as a foundation for finding that Uttim Gorain had falsely charged the petitioner with misappropriation of the documents. Further more, when Uttim Gorain sent a written notice to the petitioner to return the documents the petitioner instead of replying that they had already been returned which is what one would expect if that had been the case, sent no reply at all, and has given no explanation of his conduct in that behalf. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to hold that the inference drawn by the Courts below adverse to the petitioner is incorrect and I would accordingly discharge this rule.