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:

A, being amicable with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's nonappearance, and takes away a book without Z's express consent. Here, assuming A was under the feeling that he had Z's inferred agreement to take the book for study purpose, A has not committed any crime. Later on, A sells off the book and reports it as lost. Determine the liability of A.

Option: 1

Liable for theft


Option: 2

Liable for dishonest misappropriation of property


Option: 3

Liable for fraud


Option: 4

None of the above


Answers (1)

best_answer

Here if he takes property for study purpose only and later keeps it back in the library then he will not be liable for any offence, but the fact that he sold that property to another person for profit and reported it as lost gives rise to criminal liability. Hence 2) is the right answer.

 

Posted by

mansi

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

SC transfers CLAT 2025 cases to Delhi High Court; next hearing on March 3
anam-khan

Supreme Court to hear CLAT 2025 case transfer pleas today

Latest Question