LAHIRI,J. - (1.) THIS rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406, Penal Code and an order that he be released on probation of good conduct on executing a bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,000 each for a period of one year, from the date of the order.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that one Hazi Gura Mia need to carry on a business in confectionary and bakery in the town of Darjeeling. He died on 5th September 1946 leaving his confectionary and bakery shop and considerable assets. The prosecution case is that after the death of Guru Mia his widow inherited the assets and used to carry on the confectionary and bakery business. According to the practice followed by this business, the officer in charge of the bakery business used to hold in his hands the sale proceeds of the bakery shop and at the beginning of the next mouth he used to deposit the said sale proceeds in the account of the firm itself. On 1st September 1949, the petitioner who was in charge of the bakery business was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 478 as representing the sale proceeds of the previous month for the purpose of crediting the same in the account of the firm but the petitioner instead of crediting the said amount in the account of the firm credited it in his own private account in the bank of Jaylall Narsingdass. On these allegations, the petitioner was placed on his trial under Section 406, Penal Code. The defence was that after the death of Gura Mia the petitioner inherited part of his assets and became a co -owner of the business and the petitioner was in charge of the management of the shop and the bakery as one of the proprietors. The petitioner further denied that there was any entrustment with him of the sum of Rs. 478 on 1st September 1949 as alleged by the prosecution and upon these facts the petitioner pleaded that he was not guilty.
(3.) THE Courts below have overruled the defence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.;