SHARAD MANOHAR, J. - (1.)This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint against the respondent accused in respect of an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been turned down by the lower Appellate Court. The appeal, however, is restricted to the question of return of the property which is the subject matter of this criminal case.
(2.)The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be very briefly stated as follows : For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as complainant and accused. The father of the accused was owner of land bearing S. No. 51/1, in which there is a well. On 20th March, 1973 an agreement was arrived at between the complainant on the one hand and father of the accused on the other, by virtue of which the complainant got possession of the land for the purpose of raising banana crop on the same for a period of two years, for certain fixed considerations. The complainant, it was understood would install electric motor on the well for the purpose of irrigation of the land. After the expiry of the period of two year, he was to remove the motor and hand over possession back to the father of the accused. After the period of two years, the complainant handed over possession of the land back to the accused who by that time had started looking after the property belonging to his father. The contention of the complainant was that he wanted to take away the motor, but the accused requested him to keep the motor on the well so that he could derogate his banana plantation which was there on the land at that particular time. The complainant agreed but accused but accused did not return the motor even after the agreed period and hence ultimately the complainant approached the police. The accused was called by the police to the Police Station and in the presence of the police the accused executed a writing agreeing to return the electric motor by 31-7-1977. But even by that time the motor was not returned with the result that ultimately the complainant had to file the complaint in question on 9-8-1977 against the accused for having committed offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)The defence of the accused was that the complainant owned certain monies to the accused in connection with banana plantations which was a transaction on partnership basis and that in that transaction, the electric motor was given by the complainant to the accused in satisfaction of his debt to the accused. His fathers contention was that the complainant had written a letter addressed to his own son stating the motor should be allowed to remain with the accused in discharge of the debt. The letter was sought to be produced by the accused in evidence. Finally it was contended that the matter was of civil character and no criminal offence was made out against the accused.