The facts which form the background of this revision petition are that Mst. Umtul Maqsoom was married to Suleman Shah and she received dowry which included articles of household, such as crockery, clothes, furniture and cutlery, consisting of about 175 items. Hassamuddin put his signature on every paper of the list of articles in token of their receipt on behalf of his son. The relations between the spouses became strained and Mst. Umtul Maqsoom came to her parents' house after two months of her marriage. It is alleged by her that respondents were liable to return the articles mentioned above but they had not returned and have misappro--priated those articles which were entrusted to them.
2. On the above allegations a complaint was made on 6-9-1963, by Mst. Umtul Maqsoom under section 406, read with section 420, P. P. C. Alleging that she was married to Suleman Shah on 8-1- 1963, and two months afterwards when the relations between the spouses became strained she was turned out of the house on 25-3-1963. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, tried the case and examined five witnesses including Muhammad Shafeequrrehman, Iqbal Ahmad, Malik Sultan Ahmad P. Ws. Besides the complainant, who had deposed that Hasamuddin accused signed the list containing the articles of dowery, which were taken to the house of the accused at the time of marriage while Muhammad Yousaf (P. W. 5) stated that the complainant never lived in a separate house. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Hasamuddin and Suleman and came to the conclusion that criminal misappropriation of property has not been established and the matter is of a civil nature. He discharged the accused persons under section 253 (1), Cr. P.
C. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which was dismissed, on 21-7-1966. Hence this revision petition.
3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case, I feel that neither in the complaint nor in the statements which the complainant and her witnesses have made there is anything to indicate that there was any intention of cheating at the time of signing the inventory list. The failure to deliver the articles can be sequence of any other factors which, if found true, may fix civil liability. This revision petition was admitted only on the ground that there was ample evidence on the file to show that the respondents dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the articles of dowry. On the basis of the allegations which had been made in the complaint, I am unable to find that any criminal offence was committed in respect of articles which were given in dowry. Admittedly the parties were on friendly terms when the marriage between the spouses took place and there was no question of any deception having been practised upon the complainant. This may be one of the circum--stances to be considered in addition to some other evidence indicat--ing misrepresentation, but no such misappropriation has bee alleged in the complaint. In a case of criminal breach of trust, there is entrustment of property, whereas in a case of cheating there is no trust but the property has been obtained by practising deception and both these ingredients are missing in this case.
4. In view of the above discussion, I see no force in this revision petition which is dismissed.