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:

Amit was in a crowded place where he saw a person drop his wallet with Rs10,000 in it. Amit picks that purse knowingly it belongs to another person. He uses that money for his own use rather than giving it back to its owner or informing in the police station.

Option: 1

Amit is liable for breach of trust


Option: 2

Amit is liable for nothing since the money was lost


Option: 3

Amit is liable for Criminal misappropriation of property


Option: 4

Amit is liable for theft


Answers (1)

best_answer

Whenever any person knowingly uses another person's property for his own use is a crime in the eyes of law because he is not the owner of that property. In this case, Amit found money that does not belong to him and he has the responsibility to return it to the authorities. He instead used it for his own purpose. Hence option 3 is the correct answer.

 

Posted by

Divya Prakash Singh

View full answer

Similar Questions

Latest Question