-
Engineering and Architecture
Exams
Colleges
Predictors
Resources
-
Computer Application and IT
Quick Links
Colleges
-
Pharmacy
Colleges
Resources
-
Hospitality and Tourism
Colleges
Resources
Diploma Colleges
-
Competition
Other Exams
Resources
-
School
Exams
Top Schools
Products & Resources
-
Study Abroad
Top Countries
Student Visas
-
Arts, Commerce & Sciences
Exams
Colleges
Upcoming Events
Resources
-
Management and Business Administration
Colleges & Courses
Predictors
-
Learn
Online Courses
Engineering Preparation
Medical Preparation
-
Online Courses and Certifications
Top Streams
Specializations
- Digital Marketing Certification Courses
- Cyber Security Certification Courses
- Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
- Business Analytics Certification Courses
- Data Science Certification Courses
- Cloud Computing Certification Courses
- Machine Learning Certification Courses
- View All Certification Courses
Resources
-
Medicine and Allied Sciences
Colleges
Predictors
Resources
-
Law
Resources
Colleges
-
Animation and Design
Predictors & Articles
Colleges
Resources
-
Media, Mass Communication and Journalism
Colleges
Resources
-
Finance & Accounts
Top Courses & Careers
Colleges
Get Answers to all your Questions
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:
Rhea finds an expensive phone on the road and when finds out it belongs to a girl who resides near her house. But instead of giving back to her, she sells the phone as she is in need of money. Decide the liability of Rhea.
Rhea is liable for misappropriation of property
Rhea is liable for theft
Rhea is liable for nothing as she was in need of money
Rhea is liable for cheating
Answers (1)
In order to prove the offence of criminal misappropriation of property, it is important that the person who uses someone else's property use it for her own purpose without consent of the owner. Therefore, Rhea is liable for the offence mentioned in option (1). this makes 1) the correct answer.
