https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299534 Failure to account for entrusted property, when coupled with an untrue explanation and surrounding circumstances, may justify an inference of dishonest misappropriation for criminal breach of trust. The text also explains that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not require physical presence at the moment of misappropriation; liability may arise from conduct showing shared participation in the unlawful act. It further notes that a charge referring to Section 34 does not invalidate conviction for the substantive offence where joint liability is otherwise established. Sentencing interference depends on the role and responsibility of each accused and the nature of the entrustment. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Dec 2021 14:46:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299534 Failure to account for entrusted property, when coupled with an untrue explanation and surrounding circumstances, may justify an inference of dishonest misappropriation for criminal breach of trust. The text also explains that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not require physical presence at the moment of misappropriation; liability may arise from conduct showing shared participation in the unlawful act. It further notes that a charge referring to Section 34 does not invalidate conviction for the substantive offence where joint liability is otherwise established. Sentencing interference depends on the role and responsibility of each accused and the nature of the entrustment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299534