406 non-dowry case

Vikrant Desai (Querist) 23 April 2014 This query is : Resolved
Sir/Madam,
The case against me is as follows -
The complainant is a jeweller and I knew him as a friend and customer. He claims that he had a necklace worth Rs 2 lac made for his wife. When I visited him one day, he showed the necklace to me. I said that I like it and would show it to my wife. Once I took it away, he claims that I left town and did not return the necklace. He says that this is why he has filed a complaint u/s 406. I was arrested and released by court on bail. The necklace was recovered from my brother-in-law.
My story is as follows -
I knew the jeweller and used to frequent his home periodically. He is the president of the local jeweller's association and a known moneylender. In fact, I had ordered many pieces of jewellery from him in the past and also ordered this particular necklace. I took delivery of the necklace but told him that I will pay him in a few days as I was going thru a cash crunch. After a few days I went on a pilgrimage to haridwar and vaishno devi. He deals with the police everyday as he is president of association and he helps jewellers who buy stolen gold. He apparently found my house locked and thought I had run away. The police arrested me in bhatinda in Punjab where I was attending satsang and brought me back to solapur. I immediately returned the necklace to him. He claims that he has spent Rs 2 lacs on travelling and bribes to police so he wants that amount too. I say that this was a simple credit transaction and he took it to the police so I will not pay for his expenses. Now the case is ready for hearing.
My lawyer suggests -
1. That mere possession of property is not criminal breach of trust.
2. That it is not easy to beleive that the complainant will just entrust such a valuable necklace to someone he knew only for about 6 months.
Please suggest any strategy that comes to your mind. I will appreciate it greatly. Please also ask any questions that you may have.
Thanks
Vikrant Desai
+91 8483 935 666

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 24 April 2014
Do not worry, he could not prove criminal beach of trust.
Let the trial commence, it would conclude in your acquittal.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 24 April 2014
Engage a good lawyer practicing in criminal law and proceed with the case on merits.

Guest (Expert) 24 April 2014
Mr. Vikrant,

If you don't mind, yours is an unparallel complex story with several contradictions that cannot be believed easily due to multi inter-linking events, involvement of your own brother-in-law that too linked with stolen jwellery, your order for the the necklace and also spending on your costly tours & trips when you were facing cash crunch.

Anyway, my opinion on your two queries are as follows:

1) not possession of property, but possession of stolen property is an offence that may or may not involve criminal breach of trust, as that depends upon the nature of inter-related events and facts behind that.

2) Believable or not, that depends upon how much you were close to the other party and how much trust he could pose upon you in relation to the event. That is another thing if your advocate is able to establish your innocence before the judge.

Suggestion on any strategy for you can be possible only after examination and analysis of the case related documents as a whole.

Vikrant Desai (Querist) 24 April 2014
Mr Dhingra
I understand how you may feel about expenses on travel. But the whole idea of travel was to alleviate financial problems through pilgrimage. Most of my friends and relatives were aware of my travel plans which is why the police was able to locate me.

Vikrant Desai (Querist) 24 April 2014
Also my brother in law was not involved at all. He was shown as posessing the necklace by the police. I returned the necklace from my bank locker as soon as they brought me back to solapur.

Vikrant Desai (Querist) 24 April 2014
Also thanks Mr Dhingra Mr Barman and Mr Goyal

Guest (Expert) 24 April 2014
Dear Mr. Vikrant,

It is not me, who is to be satisfied, but the judge in the court who has to decide the case, as to how your brother-in-law was not involved when the jewellery article was found in his possession or for what purpose you were on the so called pilgimage. In fact law courts do not rely on pilgrimage to solve or alleviate financial problem.

My views were based only on your own description of the problem In fact, I admire your courage in a try to give true picture of the events. But, in the absence of details, anyone can assume anything on the basis of brief discussion of the background, as made by you. That is why, I suggested you for getting the case related documents examined by some expert, as mere casual discussion of the problem may not solve your problem.

Anyway, as already advised that suggestions on strategy can be possible only after examination and analysis of the case related documents, you are advised to get personal consultation or through email from any of expert of your choice on providing your papers aided by detailed discussion on the issue.

Guest (Expert) 24 April 2014
You are welcome.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 24 April 2014
further to what Mr Dhingra observed.

First of all it is hard to believe that in jwellery trade one will operate on credit. They are know to regard all and trust none beyond a limit. The version of jeweler is logical parcirularly when you left the town without informing him and jwellery recovered from your relative.

(i) you purchases the necklace on credit as there was a cash crunch. Jewellery is never the basic necessity.

(ii) you never stated that you told the jeweler will be away from town for many days. One the contrary you promised payment in time.

(iii) It goes without saying that the jeweler needed to come to your house (and found it locked) only when payment was not coming.

(iv) you had no money to buy the necklace but had a lot of money to travel at far away places on pilgrimage.

(v) you say that it is simple credit transaction but he an police will say that it is a case of cheating by way of having temporary custody of the necklace and running leaving the town. They have a logic.

(vi) You say that you returned the necklace. I am sorry you had no choice. Police has already taken you in custody and they know how to recover.

(vii) The complainant must of a reputed jeweler and would not be running with police behind each customer.

(viii) There might be some document in support of recovery from your brother-in-law.

So better try amicable solution.

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 24 April 2014
you are welcome...

Biswanath Roy (Expert) 24 April 2014
Sec406 IPC is applicable for criminal breach of trust. To bring home this offence the ingredients of entrustment with property having domain over it, and the same having been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the accused person are required to be proved. This is the view took up by the MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT in the case of
Bairo Prasad vs. Laxmibai,reported in Cr. L.J, 1991, at page 2535. In another case Supreme Court said "Where in prosecution for the offence under section 406 and 120B IPC,the evidence did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, the accused was acquitted." ( Ramanlal Baldevdas Shah vs. State of Gujrat,A.I.R. 1992 SC 1916 )

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 24 April 2014
I think expert Mr. Sudhir Kumar has brought to light many hidden agenda in the story (query) narrated by the author. The author has already found solutions to his query to how to tackle the situation in the court through his lawyer, while analyzing all the events narrated,it appears to be one more academic query.