Judgment :- 1. The complainant in C. C. No. 2653 of 1965 of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Cochin, has filed this revision petition against the concurrent orders of the courts below discharging the accused in the case under S.253(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the complainant was as follows: The accused, the complainant and three others were partners in a business. The accused was managing the business of the partnership and maintaining its accounts. On 13 9 62 the partnership was dissolved, on the basis of the accounts as maintained by the accused. Subsequently, it was discovered that there were false entries in the accounts and that the accused had mis-appropriated amounts from the partnership. In the books of account for the year 1960-61, the accused made an entry that a sum of Rs. 5,226.25 had been paid by the firm towards income-tax due from the firm. The actual tax payable by the firm for the year was only Rs. 1,681.65 and accused paid only that amount as income tax due from the firm and mis¬appropriated the balance. The complaint was that he committed an offence under S.403 of the Indian Penal Code by this act. 3. After recording the evidence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate found that no case under S.403 has been made out and discharged the accused. 4. A revision petition was riled against the order before the District Magistrate and he confirmed the order of the Sub-Magistrate. 5. The question for consideration in this petition lies in a narrow compass. It is admitted that the accused was a partner in the business and that he was managing the affairs of the partnership and maintaining the accounts. In his capacity as partner he took an amount of Rs. 5,000 and odd from the partnership and paid Rs. 1,681.65 out of it towards income-tax due from the firm and utilised the balance for his own purposes, viz., for paying the income-tax due from him in his personal capacity and made an entry in the accounts of the partnership that the 5,000 and odd rupees was paid to the income-tax authorities as tax due from the firm. This was really a fraud upon the other partners. The accounts of the partnership were settled subsequently and a deed of dissolution was executed, (Ext. This was really a fraud upon the other partners. The accounts of the partnership were settled subsequently and a deed of dissolution was executed, (Ext. D-1.) It would appear that the accounts were settled on the basis that the entire amount of Rs. 5,000 and odd was paid as tax due from the firm. A civil suit has been filed for setting aside the deed of dissolution on the ground of fraud and that is pending. 6. The learned Magistrate discharged the accused for the reason that no criminal breach of trust can be committed as the partnership property is the property of all the partners and that one partner cannot be entrusted with partnership property or dominion over that property within the meaning of S.405 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied upon the ruling in Bhuban Mohan v. Surendra Mohan AIR. 1951 Calcutta 69 to support the argument. 7. In this case, we are not concerned with the question whether the accused has committed an offence punishable under S.406. We are only concerned with the question whether he has committed an offence punishable under S.403, and for the commission of an offence under S.403, it is not necessary to establish that the accused had been entrusted with any property or dominion of property and that he mis¬appropriated the same. It is enough to prove that the accused dishonestly appropriated the property of the firm. 8. Mr. Bhaskara Menon, appearing for the counter-petitioner, submitted that partnership property is co-ownership property and one partner cannot commit the offence of criminal mis-appropriation in respect of that property. I do not think that there is anything in the section to preclude partners from committing the offence. The decisions in Nrigendro Lal v. Okhoy Coomer 21 W. R.59 (FB.), V. V. Reddy v. K. C. V. Reddy, 43 Crl. L. J. 263, Alla Rakha v. Liakat Hossain AIR. 1940 Calcutta 371 and in In re Baron Von Dincklage AIR 1942 Mad. 182 seem to take the view that a partner can commit the offence of criminal misappropriation. In V. V. Reddy v. K, C. V. Reddy 43 Crl. L. J. 263, Alla Rakha v. Liakat Hossain AIR. 1940 Calcutta 371 and in In re Baron Von Dincklage AIR 1942 Mad. 182 seem to take the view that a partner can commit the offence of criminal misappropriation. In V. V. Reddy v. K, C. V. Reddy 43 Crl. L. J. 263 the court said: "It is clear, I consider, that whatever may have been the old state of the law in England, in India a partner has always been liable to be tried for criminal mis-appropriation of property or for criminal breach of trust of property under the law as laid down in S.403 and 405, IPC." In Jagannath v. Emperor, AIR. 1932 Bombay 57 Beaumont, C. J. observed that a partner may be guilty of criminal mis-appropriation. We are not concerned here with the correctness of his view that a partner can be guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of partnership property. A partner who is in possession of partnership assets is subject to the law of partnership and is bound to account for them to other partners. The fact that the property is joint or co-ownership property is itself no defence to a prosecution for criminal misappropriation, but if the appropriation is under a claim of right that may lend colour to an assertion of good faith, thus repelling a charge of dishonesty. Even in such a case, good faith cannot be presumed but will have to be proved like any other fact by the accused. If a partner were to appropriate an amount belonging to the partnership in the assertion of a bona fide claim of right, it may not amount to criminal misappropriation, even if on accounting among the partners it will be found that no amount is due to him. But, in a case where he has taken money from the partnership and utilised it for his own purposes, but entered in the accounts of the firm that the money has been drawn and utilised for the purpose of the partnership, I think, he is liable for criminal mis-appropriation of the partnership property. In England, this point is now met by direct legislation which enacts that "if any person, being a member of any co-partnership, or being one of two or more beneficial owners of any money ...shall steal or embezzle such money ... In England, this point is now met by direct legislation which enacts that "if any person, being a member of any co-partnership, or being one of two or more beneficial owners of any money ...shall steal or embezzle such money ... every such person shall be liable to be...tried, convicted, and punished for the same as if such person had not been or was not a member of such co-partnership, or one of such beneficial owners" (See S.1 of Larceny and Embezzlement Act, 1868). Although we have no corresponding Act, I think, the terms of the section are wide enough to include a partner dishonestly appropriating partnership property. The gist of the offence here consists in taking the amount from the partnership as if the amount was required for paying off the income tax due from the firm and entering so in the accounts of the partnership and then appropriating part of the amount and paying the income tax due from the accused in his personal capacity without disclosing it. That, I think, would amount to dishonest appropriation. The lower courts were wrong in discharging the accused. I would therefore set aside the orders of the courts below and direct a further enquiry by the trial Magistrate. The petition is disposed of as above. Allowed.