JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Manak Chand against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, by which the judgment of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City convicting the petitioner under section 406 I.P.C and giving him the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and directing him to pay Rs.1500/-, as compensation to the complainant was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case against Manak Chand petitioner was as follows: On February 20, 1974, Lekh Raj complainant lodged a written report about an incident of criminal breach of trust alleged to have been committed by the petitioner with the police at police station, Adarshnagar, Jaipur. It was stated in the report that Manak Chand had been employed by Lekh Raj complainant as a salesman for selling his cloth. Manak Chand was working in the capacity of a salesman for the last four years. About 11/2 months prior to the lodging of the written report, while working in such capacity Manak Chand took away cloth of the value of Rs. 4000/-, from the complainant for sale hut neither he paid the price of the cloth to the complainant, nor he did return the cloth entrusted to him for sale. The complainant, thereupon, made necessary inquiries into the matter. Upon inquiry, he came to know that Manak Chand had sold away the cloth and absconded with the money. On the basis of the above mentioned written report, the police registered a criminal case under section 406 I.P. C. and took up usual investigation into the matter. On completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Manak Chand under section 406,I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 3,Jaipur City. The learned Magistrate tried Manak Chand petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406,1.P.C. and upon conclusion of the trial found him guilty thereof. Accordingly he convicted the petitioner under section 406,1.P C. but instead of sentencing him at once, released him on probation upon his furnishing a personal bond in the amount of Rs.3000/-, together with a surety bond in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. In addition thereto, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/-, as compensation to the complainant. In addition thereto, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/-, as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, but his appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the lower court was confirmed as stated above Hence, the petitioner has moved this court in revision. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heat Mr. R.P. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.B. Mathur and Mr Heman Das Public Prosecutors for the State. Upon perusal of the record and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the two Public Prosecutors, I am satisfied that Manak Chand petitioner was rightly convicted of the offence punishable under section 406,1.P.C. The Additional Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, after close and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on the record rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was given possession of the cloth for a specific purpose i.e. for sale and to pay the sale proceeds thereof to the complainant which he failed to do The expressions "being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property" used in section 405,I.P.C. are used in a wide sense and includes within their province or sphere all cases in which an accused person is given possession of property for a specific purpose or to deal with it in a particular manner. In the instant case, there is ample evidence on the record that the cloth was entrusted to the petitioner for sale by the complainant as the petitioner had been employed by the latter as a salesman to sell his cloth. The petitioner was bound to deal with the cloth in accordance with the terms of the entrustment i.e. to say he was required to sell the cloth as a salesman of the complainant and to pay the latter the sale proceeds thereof. Consequently, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no entrustment of cloth to the petitioner because the complainant himself admitted that the petitioner used to keep the profit with him after sale of the cloth and was required to return the price only thereof to the latter. Consequently, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no entrustment of cloth to the petitioner because the complainant himself admitted that the petitioner used to keep the profit with him after sale of the cloth and was required to return the price only thereof to the latter. Apart from reliable oral evidence, the prosecution has produced document Ex.P 1 which is proved to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of Lakh Raj complainant and wherein it was admitted that the cloth was received as Amanat i.e. in trust for sale by the petitioner from Lekh Raj on December 1, 1973. In this document it was further admitted by the petitioner that he was working as a salesman of Lekh Raj complainant and in such capacity he had obtained the possession of the cloth. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed this document Ex.P.l on the ground that it was not a genuine one and was not produced along with the first information report or in the course of investigation by the complainant. Both the courts below have considered the above criticism directed against this document and relied upon it and I find no substantial grounds for doubting its genuineness, especially when cogent proof has been led by the prosecution to prove its execution by the petitioner, There is further proof front the side of the prosecution that the petitioner failed to return either the cloth or the price thereof to the complainant. He, on the other hand, sold away the cloth and dishonestly misappropriated the price thereof and, in this manner, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of property belonging to the complainant. Both the courts below, therefore, committed no error in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 406, I.P C. 4. The petitioner has already been given benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State has not challenged the order of the learned Additional Judl. Magistrate releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct by way of appeal or revision and so no interference is called for with this order in this revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. As regards the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. Magistrate releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct by way of appeal or revision and so no interference is called for with this order in this revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. As regards the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1500/-, to the complainant, it was contended that such an order is illegal and clearly unsustainable in the eye of law in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (3) of section 357, Cr.P.C. which empower the court to order the accused person to pay compensation only when a sentence is imposed on him, of which fine does not form a part. It was further argued that in the instant case the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate did not award any sentence to the petitioner but released him on probation instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment and so the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to direct the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs 1500/-, as compensation to the complainant. I have carefully considered the above contention and found it untenable because the order clearly indicates that the order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/-, as compensation to the complainant has been made under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which reads as follows:- "5. Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.-(1) The Court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4 may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay - (a) such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and (b) such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable. (2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) of be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 386 and 387 of the Code. (2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) of be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 386 and 387 of the Code. A Civil Court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub section (1) in awarding damages." Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the complainant is illegal or bad in law is overruled. 6. The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition filed by Manak Chand has no force and is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******