The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday April 12 1909

In fact a Judge ought not to direct a prosecution which will necessarily deprive the person charged of the right of appeal and remedies ordiwarily available against the complainant if the charge should prove to be groundless unless the commission of the offence is brought home to his mind by facts brought to his notice in the course of the trial. [...] It implied not only a fact but an intention ; not only the fact of the thing being under the control of the possessor but also the intention on the part of the possessor to hold it so as to reap exactly the same benefit from it as the real owner would and to exercise the same rights over it even though he might be well aware thati►e was not the real owner and had no claim to be so. [...] In the A:a/at/rya/ which the tehsildar executed in favour of the employers there were the stipulations that the tehsildar should render accounts at the end of each year and on the rendition of accounts any money found due must be made over to the employers ; and unless these were done the tehsildar would not he able to enter upon his service for the next year. [...] The surety appealed to the High Court and on his behalf it was contended that as in consequence of the employers not acting according to the terms of the tehsildar's kabullyat the tehsildar got an oppotunity to embezzle a greater portion of the amount in the second year of his service the surety was not responsible for the defalcation of the second year. [...] Their Lordships held :—That by omitting to take accounts and the tahbil at the end of each year from the tehsildar the employers did not make any variation in the terms of the contract within the meaning of sec.