MOHD. SULAIMAN versus MOHD. AYUB & ANR.

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 09-12-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

...... 
-~?-1 ~;---:-'.·~ 
:'.w· 
'-"-, 
_.< 
MOHD. SULAil\IAN 
Y. 
MOHD. AYUB & ANR. 
December 9, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, I. c. SHAH, 
. N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and S. M. SIKRI, iJ.] . 
Civil dispute--Person hiring article for own use lat~~ claiming owner-
ship by purchase-Dispute about nature of agreement-Hirer whether guilty 
of breach of trust-Indian Penal Code ss. 405 and 406. 
A 
B 
· 
The appellant tool:: an electric motor from an electrical Works in 
which the respondent was employed. Dispute arose about the terms on . C . 
v•hich the motor had been taken. The appellant wrote a Jetter to the 
Works that he had purchased the motor after paying its full price; on 
behalf of the works it was said that it had only been given on hire. The 
Works. through the respondent, filed a complaint against the appellant 
alleging breach of trust. The complaint was dismissed by the trying magis-
trate but in appeal under s. 417 ( 3) Criminal Procedure Code the High 
Court held that the claim of ownership made by the appellant in his 
' letter was not bona fide and that by writing the said letter he had sought 
D 
to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the works in \io-
lation of the entrustment, which made him guilty under s. 406 of the 
• 
Indian Perta! Code. In appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave, 
HEID : The appeal must succeed. 
Clearly s. 405 contemplates something being done with respect to the 
property which would indicate either misappropriation or conversion to the 
T
offender's own use, or its use or disposal m violation of the contract 
E. 
express or implied. 
But when as in the present case nothing was done 
with respect to the use of the property which was not in accordance with 
the hiring agreement between the parties it cannot be said there was mis-· 
appropriation or conversion of the property or its use or disposal in vioa-
tion of the contract. The appellant did not part with the possession· of 
the motor to any body else; he put it to his own use-the purpose for 
which he had tal::en it. The use of the motor remained the same after the 
letter in question as before it. The said letter merely raised a dispute of 
F 
a civil nature bera·een the parties and there was no question of any criminal 
breach of trt1,5t punishable under s. 406 with respect· to the matter on the 
basis of that letter. [401 D-F; 402 E] 
· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
128 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1962, 
of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 1960. 
S. C. Mazumdar, for the appellant. 
P. K. Chakravarti and P. K. Bose, for.the respondent no. 2. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. 
This is an appeal on a certificate granted by 
th~ Calcutta High Court. The appellant hired a westing house, 
R 
•
\ 
SULAIMAN v. AYUB (Wanchoo, J.) 
399 
A D. C. motor from the Modern Electrical Works (hereinafter refer-
red to as the Works) on April 4, 1958 on a rent of Rs. 40 per 
month. 
The hiring period was to last for at least three months 
and it was agreed that if the motor or parts thereof were lost or 
damaged by the appellant, he would be bound to pay the whole 
cost of the motor and the parts. 
The motor remained in the use 
B of the appellant and hir.e-charges were paid by him from April 
1958 to January 1959. Therefater it is said that no hire-charges 
were paid. 
On June 8, 1959, the appellant wrote a letter to the 
Works in which he said that he had purchased the motor in 
question for Rs. 600 on condition that ihe same would be tried 
C for three months, and if it was found satisfactory the money would 
be paid and the purchase completed. 
The letter also stated that 
the agreement was that if the motor was not found satisfactory, 
the appellant would pay three months' hire at Rs. 40 per month 
and the motor would be returned th.ereafter. 
Finally, the appel-
lant said in the letter that the Works had been paid Rs. 620 in all 
D 
and thus the purchase had been completed. 
The appellant there-
fore requested the Works to give him a slip saying that the motor 
had been sold to the appellant, as no further money was due to 
the Works. 
On June 15, 1959, the Works sent a reply to the 
appellant denying that any such agreement as was alleged by the 
appellant had been made. 
It was also denied that Rs. 620 had 
E 
been paid, and therefore the purchase was complete. 
Finally it 
was said that the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.