Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Read the passage and answer the question that follow. In the case of M/S Halonex Limited, 59-A Noida vs State of U.P., it was held that “In reply to the afores

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

In the case of M/S Halonex Limited, 59-A Noida vs State of U.P., it was held that “In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that the case of the applicants that no amount is due from their side to the complainant is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at this stage. It has been submitted that the term 'entrustment' as used in Section 405 IPC has been given a wider interpretation. It has been submitted that the goods returned by the complainant to the Company for replacement or for reimbursement would be deemed to have been entrusted to the Company and as the applicants 2 & 3 were handling its affair they become responsible. To buttress the said submission, the learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2003) 3 SCC 641, wherein it was observed that: "the term "entrustment" is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general signification all it imports is the handing over possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right at all." Attention was also drawn to an observation made in the judgment of the aforesaid case, where it was observed that: "to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion”.

Question:

P borrows from L his phone for using it to call his parents. However, when L is distracted, P removes the memory card of the phone and later on sells it. Decide the liability of P.

Option: 1

P is guilty under dishonest misappropriation of property

 


Option: 2

P is not guilty for any offence since the phone was given with consent


Option: 3

P is guilty for theft


Option: 4

P has been handed over the phone, so he has the right to use it as he likes


Answers (1)

best_answer

Whoever insincerely mis-allots or converts to his own utilisation any movable property will be responsible for dishonest misappropriation of property. In this case, the phone was handed for a call to parents, anything else than that is an offence. Hence option (1) is correct.

 

Posted by

Suraj Bhandari

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

CLAT Cut-Off 2025: How hard is it to get into GNLU? Rank required for law admissions
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 Cutoff: Expected cutoff ranks, marks for General category; UG, PG seat intake
anam-khan

CLAT 2025: WBNUJS ranked 4th in NIRF this year; cut-offs, category-wise closing ranks

Latest Question