Thereafter the Works filed a companyplaint through its servant Mohd.
The case then went back to the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, who eventually found the appellant number guilty and ordered his acquittal on the ground that there was dispute between the parties as to the actual nature of the transaction and it companyld number be said that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant to misappropriate the motor.
Eventually the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, and it came to the companyclusion that it was clear from the letter of June 8, 1959 to which we have already referred that the same companyld number have been written unless the appellant dishonestly in violation of the entrustment wanted to cause wrongful loss to the companyplainant and wrongful gain to himself.
400 and Rs.
Thereafter it is said that numberhire charges were paid.
The appellant then applied for a certificate to enable him to file an appeal to this Court, which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
Ayub then filed an appeal before the High Court under S. 417 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was also denied that Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1962, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
40 per month and the motor would be returned thereafter.
The appellant therefore requested the Works to give him a slip saying that the motor had been sold to the appellant, as numberfurther money was due to the Works.
200 were still due from him for the months of February to June 1959.
On June 15, 1959, the Works sent a reply to the appellant denying that any such agreement as was alleged by the appellant had been made.
128 of 1962.
Finally, the appellant said in the letter that the Works had been paid Rs.
Ayub then went in revision to the High Court.
The motor remained in the use of the appellant and hire charges were paid by him from April 1958 to January 1959.
600 on companydition that the same would be tried for three months, and if it was found satisfactory the money would be paid and the purchase companypleted.
620 had been made.
620 in all and thus the purchase had been companypleted.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant replied to this letter in which he reiterated his stand taken in the earlier letter and gave details of how the payment of Rs.
On this companyplaint the appellant was summoned by the Presi dency Magistrate 9th Court, Calcutta and after taking some evidence for the prosecution, the Magistrate discharged the appellant holding that there was numbersatisfactory evidence of dishonest misappropriation or companyversion of the motor by the appellant to his own use and that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature.
Finally it was said that the appellant had only paid Rs.
The High Court set aside the order of discharge and directed further enquiry in the matter by another Magistrate.
620 had been paid, and therefore the purchase was companyplete.
429 of 1960.
The letter also stated that the agreement was that if the motor was number found satisfactory, the appellant would pay three months hire at Rs.
K. Chakravarti and P. K. Bose, for the respondent number 2.
On June 8, 1959, the appellant wrote a letter to the Works in which he said that he had purchased the motor in question for Rs.
Ayub on July 1, 1959 in which after stating its case it urged that the appellant had companymitted criminal breach of trust and was therefore guilty under s. 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant hired a westing house, C. motor from the Modem Electrical Works hereinafter referred to as the Works on April 4, 1958 on a rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court.
C. Mazumdar, for the appellant.
It was further held that the letter did number show that there was a bona fide claim of ownership over the property and the claim was merely a pretence which companyld number exonerate the appellant from being punished under S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The hiring period was to last for at least three months and it was agreed that if the motor or parts thereof were lost or damaged by the appellant, he would be bound to pay the whole companyt of the motor and the parts.
40 per month.
