Criminal misappropriation from unauthorised use of entrusted property sustains conviction where no prejudice results from absence of a specific charge.

Entrustment is a necessary element of criminal breach of trust, so the prosecution failed to prove that offence where the cheque was not shown to have been entrusted to the accused. The evidence nevertheless established that he obtained the cheque and converted it to his own use for purchasing a vehicle, which amounted to criminal misappropriation under Section 403 of the Penal Code. A separate charge was not fatal because the factual basis for that offence was already covered and no prejudice was shown. The conviction was therefore sustained and the acquittal set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had used the cheque belonging to the Electricity Board in purchasing a motor cycle for himself; (ii) whether, on those facts, the act amounted to criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation and whether conviction could be sustained under Section 403 of the Penal Code despite the absence of a specific charge.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had used the cheque belonging to the Electricity Board in purchasing a motor cycle for himself.

Analysis: The evidence of the dealer, supported by the books of account, the entries in the cash book, the sale of the auto-cycle, and the respondent's own admissions and extra-judicial confession, established that he delivered the cheque and used it for the purchase of the auto-cycle and motor cycle for his own benefit. The contrary defence version was rejected as untrustworthy.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative, against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether, on those facts, the act amounted to criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation and whether conviction could be sustained under Section 403 of the Penal Code despite the absence of a specific charge.

Analysis: Entrustment is essential for criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Penal Code, and the prosecution failed to prove entrustment. However, the cheque came into the respondent's possession and was converted to his own use, which constituted criminal misappropriation under Section 403 of the Penal Code. The omission to frame a specific charge did not cause prejudice because the facts necessary for that offence were already covered by the charge under Section 409 and the accused had full opportunity to meet them.

Conclusion: The respondent was guilty of criminal misappropriation under Section 403 of the Penal Code, and the conviction was sustainable despite the absence of a separate charge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the respondent's conviction for criminal misappropriation was restored with sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entrustment is not proved, criminal breach of trust fails, but intentional conversion of another's property to one's own use constitutes criminal misappropriation, and a conviction may be sustained notwithstanding the absence of a specific charge if no prejudice is caused.

---