Skip to content


Abdul Majid Mian Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936Cal520,165Ind.Cas.720
AppellantAbdul Majid Mian
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....time when he entered the service, he furnished security in cash to the extent of rs. 500. after he left service, a complaint was made against him by the said zamindars for criminal breach of trust in respect of four items, viz., an item of rs. 500 and three small items making a total of rs. 92-10-0. the lower court has held that the charge in respect of the last three items had not been substantiated, but has convicted the petitioner of criminal breach of trust of the first item.2. at the time of leaving his service the petitioner handed over the account papers to his masters. one item of expenditure shown in the account papers was this item of rs. 500, which the petitioner showed as being withdrawn by him being the money that he had put in as security for his service. in fact, that is.....
Judgment:

R.C. Mitter, J.

1. The petitioner before me has, been convicted under Section 408, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 by the lower appellate Court, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks. The petitioner was an employee of the Narail Babus. He got his employment in July 1933 and served the said zamindar for about a year till about July 1934 when he left the service. At the time when he entered the service, he furnished security in cash to the extent of Rs. 500. After he left service, a complaint was made against him by the said zamindars for criminal breach of trust in respect of four items, viz., an item of Rs. 500 and three small items making a total of Rs. 92-10-0. The lower Court has held that the charge in respect of the last three items had not been substantiated, but has convicted the petitioner of criminal breach of trust of the first item.

2. At the time of leaving his service the petitioner handed over the account papers to his masters. One item of expenditure shown in the account papers was this item of Rs. 500, which the petitioner showed as being withdrawn by him being the money that he had put in as security for his service. In fact, that is the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. On these facts, I do not see how dishonest intention could be made out, on the part of the accused. It may be that at that point of time, he had not the right to take away the said sum of Rs. 500, as the final accounting had not been made, but he had submitted the account papers to his masters and left the service. It may be that he took a wrong view of his civil rights in taking away Rs. 500, but he believed that he had the right on giving up his service. In this view of the matter I do not see how he can be convicted.

3. The result is that this rule is made absolute, the conviction and sentence be set aside and the petitioner acquitted. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //