JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling on the District Magistrate to shew cause why the conviction and sentence should not he set aside on the ground that the findings in the judgment were not sufficient to warrant the conviction. The two Petitioners are brothers: Keshab has been convicted of an offence under sec. 408, and Mahesh under secs. 4/1 0/0 8/9. The former of the two was in the employ of complainant, a jeweller, named Nityanund Biswas : the latter of the two keeps a small jeweller's shop. It appears that the complainant handed to Keshab 140 blocks to have his illustrated catalogue printed from those blocks at the Art Union Press in Calcutta. Keshab went to Calcutta several times while the catalogue was being prepared to give directions as to its arrangement and preparation : and it is alleged that he took advantage of the fact that he had control of the blocks to have the blocks used for the purpose of printing a catalogue for his brother Mahesh, and that Mahesh was a party to this arrangement. It has been argued that these facts do not constitute criminal breach of trust, because under sec. 405, to constitute criminal breach of trust, there must be a dishonest user or misappropriation of property, and that under secs. 23 and 24 an act is not done dishonestly unless it entails the wrongful gain or wrongful loss of property. It is argued therefore that the present case does not come within the section. 2. Now the section says that "whoever, being in any manner entrusted............ with any dominion over property......... dishonestly uses............that property.........in violation of............any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust" 3. Now in the present case it is found that Keshab was entrusted with dominion over the blocks in question--it appears to me difficult to say that there was not an implied contract that they should not be used for the benefit of any one except the owner--and it seems clear that the accused used, or wilfully suffered the printer to use these blocks in violation of that implied contract. 4. 4. This dealing with the blocks caused Wrongful gain to Mahesh--for Mahesh gained a catalogue at a less expense than he would have been put to had he been obliged to provide his own blocks. Keshab's employer suffered a loss, inasmuch as his property was deteriorated in value. The elements therefore necessary to establish a using "dishonestly" were present. The object of the proceeding was to enable Mahesh to get his catalogue illustrated at the expense of Keshab's employer by the dishonest user of the complainant's blocks. We think that the act comes within the definition of the offence. If the argument for the Petitioner be adopted, the word "uses" in sec. 405 becomes a nullity. The real question on which we feel some doubt was whether it might not be argued that Keshab acted bona fide, and thought that, though he was acting in an unauthorized manner, he would be doing really no substantial harm. Having regard to the position of Mahesh and Keshab, we are unable to adopt this view. The printing was done surreptitiously and was not mentioned until the complainant discovered it. The Case in the Madras High Court is distinguishable, for, in that case the wearing of the turban caused no appreciable loss to the complainant or gain to the accused. In this case the gain to the accused was substantial. We discharge the rule.