- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. List has been revised but no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this revision.
(2.) HEARD learned State counsel and perused the relevant papers. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7-7-84 passed by Sri G. A. Farooqui, IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 326/my83 and con firming the conviction of the applicant under Section 406,i. P. C. and sentencing to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500. Ashok Kumar, Qurk Amin, Tahsil Sadar Kanpur attached the movable property of Sri Pooran Chand Verma for government dues of Rs. 2545 on 11-1-77 under the orders of Deputy Collector Sales Tax. The attached property was given in the supurdgi of accused Ranjeet Singh who was directed to produce the same whenever demanded for auction. A supurdginama was executed which was signed by the accused himself. Deputy Collector Sales Tax directed for the sale of attached property which was given in the supurdgi of the ac cused applicant. The applicant was directed to produce attached property and notices were sent to him but he did not turn up nor produced the attached property, hence the matter was reported to the police station on 18-2-80 and a case was registered against the applicant under Sec. 406, I. P. C. After inves tigation the charge sheet was submitted against the accused. During the trial the prosecution adduced the evidence oral and documentary. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied to have received the property. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record held the applicant guilty of the offence charge with and convicted and sen tenced him as stated above. He preferred the criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The Illrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur after hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal. The applicant preferred this revision against the judgment and order of the courts below.
(3.) IT appears that it was argued before the lower appellate court that it was the recovery of sales tax in execution of a civil court decree; hence the accused was not liable for any offence under Section 406, I. P. C. At the most he was liable for punish ment of offence under Sec. 172, I. P. C. and not under Sec. 406 I. P. C. The appellant relied on a case Hamam Singh v. Emperor. AIR 1918 All 406 (1), a copy of the decision is on record. I have considered the facts of that case, but that case law is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the property was not mis appropriated or converted to the use of the accused nor was used or disposed of in any manner contrary to the terms of the trust. But in the present case the property was given in the supurdgi of accused and he was directed to produce the attached property whenever demanded for auction. Several notices were sent to the accused but the property was neither produced before the court nor he complied with the orders. He dishonoured his undertakings to produce the property. On the other hand he denied to have received the property. The facts and circumstances clearly leads to inference that he had misappropriated the property in his own use with dishonest intention. The courts below did not appear to have com mitted illegality in awarding the conviction and sentence in affirming the same. This revision lacks merit and is ac cordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;