AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Spencer, J.—The act of the accused in dishonestly inducing the complainant to hand over the promissory notes which the accused had
pledged with the complainant as security for a loan of Rs. 2,500 by pretending that he required them to collect money from his debtors with the aid
of which he would pay cash to the complainant would constitute, if proved, an offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is argued that it does not constitute the offence of Criminal breach of trust (Section 406) for which the petitioner has been convicted, for the
reason that the promissory notes were his own.
I am not prepared to hold that it would be impossible under any circumstances for a person to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of his
own property. The possession of the promissory notes, even without endorsement in the hands of the person with whom they were pledged, was
of some value to the complainant as it gave him control over the accused and sc long as they remained with him prevented the accused from using
them to discharge the debts due by him to other creditors in preference to him. The complainant thus had some sort of beneficial interest in this
property and when he gave the notes to the accused for a definite purpose and the accused dishonestly disposed of them in violation of the legal
contract he had made with him, there was both entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.
Thus I do not find any legal defect in the conviction. The sentence is no doubt light but considering the circumstances and the absence of a
finding as to the extent to which the complainant was damnified, I decline to enhance it.
Both Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.