JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The report of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in terms of the order dated 03.10.2018 is put up today. Perusal of the same reveals that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has reported that an enquiry was initiated against the arrant assistant and a minor penalty of censure and penalty of withholding of one Annual increment of pay was passed against the arrant assistant. Let the same be kept in the record. 3. This revision is directed against that part of the judgment dated 31st of January, 2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 66 of 1998 by which the learned S.D.J.M. has acquitted the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition for the offence punishable under Section 403/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the revision petitioner who was the complainant in Complaint Case No. 08 of 1998 which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Goelkera P.S. Case No. 10 of 1998 has been registered, married the opposite party No. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused of the said case. At the time of marriage of the petitioner of this revision with the opposite party No. 2 of this revision the father and elder brothers of the revision petitioner met the dowry demand of cash, ornaments and other articles and agreed to fulfil the demand of a motorcycle after six months of the marriage. After four months of the marriage, the revision petitioner could know that it was misrepresented by the opposite party No. 2 that he is a highly paid sales executive in a company but in fact, he was unemployed and the opposite party No. 2-accused person pressurized the revision petitioner to bring more money from her father and elder brothers. The revision petitioner could manage some money from her father and elder brothers but the demand continued which her father and elder brothers could not fulfil and ultimately she was treated with cruelty. The opposite party No. 2-accused person used to frequently remain away from home on the representation that he was required to attend interviews for jobs in different places. The opposite party No. 2-accused person used to frequently remain away from home on the representation that he was required to attend interviews for jobs in different places. Later on, it was revealed that the opposite party No. 2 was in love with a girl namely Dolly Sadera and ultimately the revision petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial house on 10.12.1996. 5. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet and charges for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 403, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the opposite party No. 2- accused person. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined six witnesses while one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1- Nandlal Maity is the father of the revision petitioner. He has stated about the marriage of the revision petitioner with the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition and about the demands of money made after the marriage along with a scooter but the P.W. 1 refused to meet the demands that were made in the eve of the marriage and upon that the revision petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture. In his cross-examination he has stated that demand was first made to him three months after the marriage through one of the boys of his village who was undergoing a training at Jamshedpur in the locality, in which the matrimonial house of the revision petitioner is situated. He had heard about the cruelty meted out to her daughter. 7. P.W. 2- Asit Baran Maity is the elder-brother of the revision petitioner. He has also stated about the marriage of the revision petitioner with the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition. He has also stated about the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition renewing his demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs. 30,000/-. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 could not say the exact date on which the opposite party No. 2 or his parents demanded money or motorcycle. He has admitted in his cross-examination that after seeing the photographs of Dolly Sadera, all issues between parties flared up. 8. P.W. 3- Aparna Maity is the younger sister of the revision petitioner. 30,000/-. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 could not say the exact date on which the opposite party No. 2 or his parents demanded money or motorcycle. He has admitted in his cross-examination that after seeing the photographs of Dolly Sadera, all issues between parties flared up. 8. P.W. 3- Aparna Maity is the younger sister of the revision petitioner. She has also stated about the marriage of the revision petitioner with the opposite party No. 2. In para-7 of her cross-examination she has stated that a motorcycle was given to the opposite party No. 2 after six months of the marriage of her sister as per demand. 9. P.W. 4- Gita Maity is the mother of the revision petitioner. She has also stated about the marriage of the parties and the opposite party No. 2 did not come to their house and he used to demand a motorcycle after marriage which they could not fulfill, thus, the revision petitioner was tortured both mentally and physically. The mother of the revision petitioner of this revision petition told the opposite party No. 2 to take back her daughter upon which the P.W. 2 went and tried to make the in-laws of the revision petitioner understand but they demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- or else told P.W. 2 to take back the revision petitioner. 10. P.W. 5- Lalji Sahai Bajpayee has stated about the marriage of the parties. He further stated that after her marriage, the revision petitioner lived happily in her in-laws house and the revision petitioner heard about the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition keeping another girl as concubine. Hence, the differences arose between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition and the revision petitioner was taken back to her matrimonial house by the opposite party No. 2. 11. P.W-6 is the revision petitioner herself. She has stated about her marriage with the opposite party No. 2. After her marriage, she remained peacefully with all love and affection with all the persons for about two months. Then the opposite party No. 2-accused person demanded money and she could give Rs. 2,000/- taking the same from her parents but when next demand was made, she refused to fulfill the same. Her father-in-law and the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition were demanding Rs. 30,000/- which her parents could not give. Then the opposite party No. 2-accused person demanded money and she could give Rs. 2,000/- taking the same from her parents but when next demand was made, she refused to fulfill the same. Her father-in-law and the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition were demanding Rs. 30,000/- which her parents could not give. After that the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition stopped meeting her and also tortured her and ultimately ousted her from his house. When her brother came to intervene in the matter, the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made and it was stated that the revision petitioner will not be kept in her in-laws house. 12. D.W. 1- A. Rana Rao who is the resident of same block just behind the railway quarter of the opposite party No. 2, has stated that he was in visiting terms with the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition and his family and he never found any quarrel between the revision petitioner and the opposite party No. 2-accused person. He further stated that suo moto the revision petitioner, in the month of December, 1997 went away to Goelkera with her brother and sister. 13. He further stated that suo moto the revision petitioner, in the month of December, 1997 went away to Goelkera with her brother and sister. 13. Considering the contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding whether the motorcycle was given to the opposite party No. 2-accused person as stated by the P.W. 3 or not given as stated by the P.W. 4 and the silence by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 about the motorcycle being given or not and the fact that no application was ever made filed before the Court during the pendency of the trial for returning of the articles allegedly given on the occasion of the said marriage and also the fact that there is no evidence in the record to show that the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition or any of his family members have refused to return back the articles claimed to have been given at the time of the said marriage and the discrepancy in the evidence as to when the demand of dowry was made, as the P.W. 1 has stated that three months after the marriage, the demand was made through one of the boys of his village who was undergoing a training at Jamshedpur in the locality in which the matrimonial house of the revision petitioner is situated and whereas the complainant has stated that she was alright for two months and even in the averments made in the complaint/F.I.R. shows that she was alright for one month and as the P.W. 5 has stated that the bone of contention between the parties was the alleged illicit relationship of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition with another lady, the learned court below came to a conclusion that the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406 of the I.P.C. or the offences punishable under Sections 4/6 (sic-3: as the charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and not under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) are not made and acquitted the opposite party No. 2 of the said charges but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and the materials in the record in its proper perspective and failed to take into consideration the pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant petitioner. It is next submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition has failed to return the valuable articles including the ornaments and cash amount which were presented at the time of marriage of the parties. Hence, it is submitted that appropriate orders be passed in the case. 15. The learned Addl. P.P. defended the impugned judgment and submitted that there is inadequate evidence in the record to establish the charges of which the opposite party no. 2 of this revision has been acquitted, beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court having rightly acquitted the opposite party no. 2 of this revision of the said charges, this revision being without any merit be dismissed. 16. So far as offence punishable under Section 403 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the word misappropriation means dishonest appropriation that in other words means use of another's property for the sole purpose of capitalizing it for one's own use. Criminal misappropriation takes place when the possession of any property comes innocently but due to subsequent change or knowledge of some new facts with which the accused was not previously acquainted retaining the property becomes wrongful or fraudulent. 'Dishonestly' and 'misappropriate' are the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 219 . After carefully going through the record, it is found that there is absolutely no evidence in the record mentioning as to which property has been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition nor there is any evidence of his dishonest intention. After carefully going through the record, it is found that there is absolutely no evidence in the record mentioning as to which property has been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition nor there is any evidence of his dishonest intention. The details of the presents, if any, presented, voluntarily at the marriage of the parties has not been mentioned in the evidence of any of the witnesses and as mentioned by the trial court in the impugned judgment itself, no demand for return of any article was ever made from the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition nor there is any evidence to this effect in the regard. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned trial court that the offence punishable under Section 403 of the I.P.C. is not established on the basis of the evidence available in the record. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same provides for punishment of criminal breach of trust and for constituting the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the I.P.C., dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property either entrusted or having dominion over the property through his own use or disposing of the property in violation of any direction of the law described in the mode in which sub trust is to be discharged is an essential requirement. Mens rea is the essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian penal Code, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 , wherein the Hon'ble court has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:- "8. ... ... ... Every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. 9. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. 9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust." Admittedly there is no question of disposing of any property involved in this case and as already indicated above, there is no evidence in the record regarding the details of articles, if any, presented at the time of the marriage of the parties. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the demand for the same was ever made nor there is any evidence in the record to suggest the Mens rea of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition. In this backdrop, the acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. cannot be said to be illegal or perverse warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, the same provides for punishment for giving or taking dowry. As already indicated above that there is absolutely no cogent evidence regarding any dowry being given to the opposite party No. 2. So, the acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also not illegal or perverse. As already indicated above that there is absolutely no cogent evidence regarding any dowry being given to the opposite party No. 2. So, the acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also not illegal or perverse. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been referred to as Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the impugned judgment because of an apparent typographical error as the charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the opposite party No. 2-accused and no charge for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against him. 19. So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the same relates to penalty for demanding dowry. As is already mentioned in the impugned judgment, the demand of dowry is full of contradictions as to what articles were demanded in dowry, whether the motorcycle was given or not and as to after how many days after the marriage, the demand was made. In view of the contradictions in these aspects, the evidence in the record as well as the testimony of the P.W. 5 that the bone of contention between the revision petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 of the revision petition was the affairs of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition with another lady, the acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 of this revision petition by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be also termed as illegal, perverse, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 20. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this criminal revision. Thus, this criminal revision, being without any merit is dismissed. 21. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.