M/S.Housing And Development vs State Rep. By Its on 18 March, 2015
In the judgment reported in AIR (37) 1950 Madras 49 (C.N.29) (Kotamsath Appanna V. Appalaraju) the accused took the gold jewel from P.W.1 for showing to his wife for placing an order for a similar jewel and latter failed to return the same. The defence was that P.W.1 owned some debts to the accused and therefore, the accused retained the jewel. In that context, it was held that whenever a thing is utilised for a purpose not intended and also against an express agreement or implied understanding, an offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out.