JUDGMENT N. Pandey & I.P. Singh, JJ. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the order taking cognizance under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner took certain cloths on a condition that he would dispose of the same in the market and deposit the sale proceeds with the complainant. It was also agreed, in case cloths are not sold, the petitioner would return such unsold cloths to the firm of the complainant within one year from the date of receipt. 3. The allegation is, though petitioner received cloths worth Rs. 14,763.32, but in spite of repeated demands only deposited a sum of Rs. 8,742.07 till 26.8.1987. In that view of the matter it was alleged that the petitioner had committed a criminal breach of trust with regard to cloths which were handed over to him. 4. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that from a bare reference to the facts alleged in the complaint petition it would appear that there was no criminal liability whatsoever. Because, even such facts are taken into consideration, it would be, at best, a civil liability. He further contended that apart from the aforesaid, the order taking cognizance in this case was also barred by the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learning counsel appearing for the opposite party while drawing our attention towards the facts alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint petition submitted that from the intention of the petitioner it is clear that he has misappropriated the properties. He contended that intention of the accused has to be judged from the facts, as alleged in the complaint petition and not on the basis of the facts brought by way of defence. 6. We after having heard learned counsel for the parties also perused the petition including the complaint petition and the impugned order. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant appears quite justified. Because, intention of an accused has to be judged from the facts alleged in the complaint petition. So far as submission of Mr. Jha that the order taking cognizance in this case was barred by limitation also appears not substantiated from the materials brought on the record. Because, intention of an accused has to be judged from the facts alleged in the complaint petition. So far as submission of Mr. Jha that the order taking cognizance in this case was barred by limitation also appears not substantiated from the materials brought on the record. Because the date on which materials were handed over to the accused will not be the date of offence. Because in such cases offence will commence from the date the complainant got the knowledge about the intention of the accused. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances noticed above we feel not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 8. But, before parting with this order we are inclined to observe that, in case the petitioner deposits the balance amount of Rs. 6021.25 paise with the complainant within three months from today, the court concerned shall dispose of the proceeding accordingly to which learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also agreed.