Who is this "person" exactly is unknown, because there exists no such person who has been deceived or cheated. It is almost déjà vu 1977, when a bunch of frivolous cases were registered against Indira Gandhi all of whom were finally thrown out by the courts. The views expressed are personal. As clarified earlier, misappropriation must be dishonest.All the shareholders of YI are office bearers of the Congress Party and its sympathisers. This averment is also patently incorrect. Twitter handle @manishtewari.There is no statutory bar on any political party from investing in any commercial enterprise that can maximise the return on investment.Surely, this "person" cannot by a figment of imagination.The third averment is criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the IPC, which requires that whoever is entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of the directions of law.The writer is a lawyer and a former Union minister.
That is to say, the Congress Party providing an interest-free unsecured loan to AJL can only be construed as an act of bowing to the sentiments of millions of Congressmen to keep the intellectual flame of the freedom struggle blazing.When AJL was in financial difficulty no one came forward to help it for the simple reason that who else except the Indian National Congress would have a stake in its existence It, therefore, begs the obvious question as to how the ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined by criminal law are made out.Although the charge of criminal conspiracy was made, no material has been put on record to substantiate the charge.This provision requires that there be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver property. Given that the object of the exercise was to revive the publication called National Herald, it is within the realm of possibility that if different set of persons were the office bearers of the All-India Congress Committee at the relevant time, instead of the accused persons, these persons obviously would have become the shareholders of YI. Be that as it may, the aid provided to AJL cannot even be considered a commercial dealing by any yardstick. There is not even a whisper in the complaint or for that matter in both the orders of the trial court or high court that nylon wheels evidences, establishes or even suggests that any property or funds of AJL have been wrongly used either by the non-profit company called YI or its individual shareholders.
The next averment made in the complaint is of dishonest misappropriation of property under Section 403, which requires that a person dishonestly misappropriates or converts for his own use any movable property. Truth will ultimately triumph. There is nothing either in any section of the Income Tax Act or the Representation of the People Act or for that matter in any other law in force that acts as an estoppel on a political party using its income in any manner.In conclusion, the timing of the summoning in July 2014, a month after the BJP government came to power, raises disturbing questions. In other words, who is the person who has been cheated The second averment that needs to be dealt with is, can it be contended that the money advanced by the Congress Party to AJL cheated the donors of the Indian National Congress The question really should be framed as follows: Is it illegal for a political party to support a newspaper through a Section 25 not for profit company The answer is no. This legal principle has been upheld by the courts in a matter pertaining to investments made by the BJP in Canstar fund (Bharatiya Janata Party vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CIT, 2003). What one needs to ponder over is, if the intent was to dishonestly misappropriate the property of AJL, what was the need to make other office bearers of the Indian National Congress shareholders in YI The answer to this question alone is enough to demolish this contention