TCriminal law stipulates that the property mentioned in section 403 must be the complainant's property. However, the claimed property must be in the accused person's possession because only when the disputed property is in someone's custody does the misappropriation offense become legally valid. Since no one possesses the stolen property, the offense of criminal misappropriation of property is not fully committed.

The complainant's legal ownership of the subject property must also be established as the first element of the case. Additionally, it must be demonstrated that the accused has possession of the property in question, and also is a movable property.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1433) that a court lacks the power to tell someone how to spend their own money. Additionally, in a partnership, if one person uses the resources of the company, he is responsible to the other partners and must shoulder the responsibility. But under section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused cannot be found guilty of the same offense.

In "Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras" (AIR 1958 SC 56), the Trial Court further ruled against the accused, holding that the money collected from the audience and participants must have been used for rewarding the winner rather than paying off his debtors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court overturned it, stating that the trial court ought to have told the accused how to spend his money. In addition, he was legally entitled to the money received. Thus, the accused was declared innocent by the judge.