SAJAN KUMAR DALMIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH opposite party no. 2 has appeared by filing vakalatnama, on call no body appears on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision application has been filed against the order dated 11 th February, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge XII, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2001 by which he has allowed the revision application filed by accused opposite party no. 2 and quashed the prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN my view, the revisional court has committed error in setting aside the order of cognizance as there is allegation of dishonest intention on the part of the accused. It is also alleged that he has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. From the definition of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code it appears that if a person dishonestly misappropriates the property in violation of an agreement which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust. There is allegation in the complaint petition that the accused has dishonestly committed the breach of the terms and conditions and misappropriated the amount and did not pay Rs. 31,530/ -. At this stage, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out.