Delhi District Court
State vs Tushar Seth on 17 April, 2026
Cr. Case 4662/2017
STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH
FIR No. 662/2014
PS Darya Ganj
Sections: 408/411 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case 4662/2017
STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH
FIR No. 662/2014
PS Darya Ganj
Sections: 408/411 IPC
DLCT020100032017
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 4662/2017 (b) Date of offence 06.05.2014 c) Complainant Sanjay Tyagi s/o. Sh. Baburam Tyagi (d) Accused Tushar Seth s/o. Narender Nath Seth r/o. J-56, Kirti Nagar, Delhi (e) Offence 408/411 IPC (f) Plea of accused Not pleaded guilty (g) Final Order Convicted (h) Date of Institution 25.04.2017 (i) Date when judgment was 28.03.2026 reserved (j) Date of judgment 17.04.2026
1. The accused Tushar Seth has faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as Chief Financial Officer with Cambridge University Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 2 Press India Pvt. Ltd. During the course of his employment, a Hyundai Elantra car bearing registration no. DL-10-CD-6596 and certain other articles were given to him by the company for official use. It is alleged that after his services were terminated, he did not return the said vehicle and other articles despite repeated demands and legal notice. On this basis, the prosecution alleges commission of criminal breach of trust. In the alternative, it was alleged that he dishonestly retained the said vehicle knowing or having reason to believe that it was property in respect of which an offence had been committed.
2. As per the chargesheet, the matter began with a written complaint dated 06.05.2014 lodged by Sanjay Tyagi, who claimed to be the authorized representative of Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. In the said complaint, it was stated that the accused had been appointed as Chief Financial Officer with effect from 26.11.2012 and, as part of his service conditions, had been given use of the aforesaid company vehicle. It was also stated that the vehicle stood registered in the name of the company. The further allegation was that the services of the accused were terminated vide letter dated 12.02.2014 and he was asked to return all company assets, including the said car. Despite reminders, email communication and legal notice, the accused allegedly did not return the vehicle and continued to keep it. On a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Court directed registration of FIR. During investigation, the accused was interrogated and arrested. Thereafter, on 25.02.2015, the vehicle and certain other articles Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 3 were allegedly recovered from his residence. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under Sections 408/411 IPC was filed.
3. After filing of the chargesheet, compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.01.2020. Arguments on the point of charge were heard. Upon perusal of the record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 408 IPC and, in the alternative, under Section 411 IPC. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During trial, the accused made a statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2024 and admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR Ex. AD-1, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. AD-2, endorsement on rukka Ex. AD-3, invoice dated 12.12.2013 Ex. AD-4, invoice dated 18.05.2013 Ex. AD-5, invoice of Hans Hyundai dated 15.12.2012 Ex. AD-6, payslip of February 2014 Ex. AD-7 colly, and the factum of deposit and release of case property from the PS malkhana. Accordingly, witnesses relating to those documents were dropped.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
6. PW1 Sanjay Tyagi deposed that in the year 2014 he was working as HR Manager at Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd., Cambridge House, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, and was the authorized representative of the company in such matters. He stated that the accused had joined as Chief Financial Officer with effect from 26.11.2012 vide appointment letter Ex. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 4 PW1/A. He further deposed that during his employment, the accused had been given certain company articles for official use, namely one laptop, one mobile phone, one iPad, hard disc, and the Hyundai Elantra car bearing registration no. DL-10- CD-6596, which was registered in the name of the company. He also stated that vide termination letter dated 12.02.2014 Ex. PW1/B, the services of the accused were terminated and he was asked to return all the belongings entrusted to him during employment.
7. In his further examination, PW1 stated that despite repeated reminders through email and registered post, and despite service of legal notice dated 31.03.2014 Ex. PW1/C, the accused did not return the said articles. He proved the complaint dated 06.05.2014 as Ex. PW1/D. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not brought the original authorization letter in his favour and that photocopies thereof were only marked. He also admitted that he did not have detailed personal knowledge regarding bonus, ex gratia, sales incentives or other dues allegedly payable to the accused. He stated that the accused had come to office on 12.02.2014 in the company car. He denied the suggestion that the accused had retained the vehicle because his dues remained unpaid.
8. PW2 Insp. Parveen Badsara deposed that on 06.05.2014, while he was posted as SI at PS Darya Ganj, the complaint made by the complainant regarding criminal breach of trust by employee was marked to him. He stated that thereafter the complainant RAJ Digitally signed filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 5 Court. In cross-examination, he fairly stated that he had not made any investigation in the present matter. His evidence is thus only formal in nature.
9. PW3 SI Suneet Kumar deposed that on 24.02.2015, while posted as Head Constable at PS Darya Ganj, the IO called the accused to the police station to join investigation. He proved the arrest memo Ex. PW3/A, personal search memo Ex. PW3/B and disclosure statement Ex. PW3/C. He identified the accused in Court. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused had answered the questions put to him during interrogation. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW4 ASI Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 25.02.2015, while posted as Constable at PS Darya Ganj, he joined investigation with the IO. He stated that after taking the accused from the lock-up, they went to J-56, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and, on the instance of the accused, recovered one mobile phone, one Samsung tab and the Hyundai Elantra car bearing no. DL-10- CD-6596, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He stated that thereafter the articles were deposited in the malkhana and the accused was produced before the Court. He correctly identified the accused in Court. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestions that no visit was made to the spot, that nothing was recovered, or that the case property had been planted.
11. PW5 Insp. Mahipal Singh is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 18.11.2014, while posted as SI at PS Darya Ganj, the complainant handed over to him the complaint along Digitally RAJ signed by KUMAR RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 6 with copy of the court order for registration of FIR. He prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A and got the FIR registered. He stated that he examined the complainant and took relevant documents from him. He proved that he issued notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused and that the accused joined investigation on 24.02.2015. He proved the disclosure statement, arrest memo and personal search memo already exhibited through PW3. He further deposed that on 25.02.2015 the accused was taken to his house and from there the Hyundai Elantra car, Blackberry mobile phone and Samsung tab were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He identified the photographs of the case property Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 colly.
12. In cross-examination, PW5 stated that at the time of interrogation, the accused had handed over a reply, but the same was not made part of the chargesheet as, according to him, it did not pertain to the question in issue. He admitted that in the said reply the accused had admitted possession of the property but had refused to hand it over till the complainant company cleared his dues. He further admitted that he had not conducted any investigation regarding the alleged dues of the accused. He stated that he had not made inquiry from Ratnesh Jha, Managing Director, or from other senior employees about such alleged dues. He also admitted that the accused had fully cooperated with the investigation.
13. PW6 Vineet Khurana deposed that he was working as Vice President Finance in Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. and had joined the company on 03.10.2017. He stated that he Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 7 had worked with Mr. Ratnesh Jha, the then Managing Director, and had seen him writing and signing documents. He proved the board resolution as Ex. PW6/A and the power of attorney dated 09.06.2014 in favour of Sanjay Tyagi as Ex. PW6/B. In cross- examination, he stated that he was not carrying his physical ID card and that he had no personal knowledge of the incident because the case had been filed before he joined the company. He also stated that he had not seen the originals of Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B.
14. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. and Sections 316 and 351 BNSS was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, claimed false implication, and stated that he had been physically and mentally harassed and was being pressured to resign. He further stated that on 11.02.2014 he had called the police and had lodged a complaint against the company. According to him, after termination, he wrote emails to the company and to Mr. Andrew in U.K. stating that he would return the car and other assets once his dues were cleared. He asserted that a substantial amount remained payable to him towards ex gratia, sales incentives and personal incentives, which according to him came to about Rs. 25 lakhs. He chose not to lead defence evidence.
15. Final arguments were heard. The prosecution argued that the accused was an employee, that the vehicle belonged to the company, that it was given to him only because of employment, RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 8 and that after termination and repeated demands, he deliberately retained it. It was submitted that such retention, despite clear demand, amounted to criminal breach of trust and that the subsequent recovery from his possession further supported the case. On the other hand, the defence argued that the matter was essentially civil in nature, that the accused had dues against the company, that he had never denied possession of the vehicle, and that there was no dishonest intention and no disposal of the property. It was also argued that there were deficiencies in investigation and that the authority of the complainant witness had not been satisfactorily proved.
16. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the entire record.
17. The accused has been charged under Section 408 IPC and, in the alternative, under Section 411 IPC. Section 408 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. To bring home an offence under this provision, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was a clerk or servant, that property or dominion over property was entrusted to him in that capacity, and that he dishonestly misappropriated, converted, used or retained the same in violation of any legal contract or direction touching such entrustment. For Section 411 IPC, the prosecution had to prove that the property was stolen property and that the accused dishonestly received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property.
18. The first ingredient of Section 408 IPC stands clearly proved.
The appointment of the accused as Chief Financial Officer of Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 9 the complainant company is borne out from Ex. PW1/A and has also been deposed to by PW1. There is no real dispute on this aspect. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has not put forward any case inconsistent with his employment in the complainant company.
19. The second ingredient, namely entrustment or dominion over the property in question, also stands proved. PW1 clearly stated that the Hyundai Elantra car bearing no. DL-10-CD-6596 and other articles were entrusted to the accused during his employment for official use. The genuineness of invoice documents and related company records was admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The case throughout, both of the prosecution and of the accused, has been that the vehicle belonged to the company and had been given to the accused because of his employment. There is thus no doubt that the vehicle was not the personal property of the accused but was company property entrusted to him in connection with his employment.
20. The real question is whether, after such entrustment, the accused dishonestly retained the property in violation of the terms on which it had been given to him. This is the main area of contest between the parties.
21. Ex. PW1/B, the termination letter dated 12.02.2014, shows that the services of the accused came to an end. PW1 deposed that through the said letter, the accused was asked to return all the belongings entrusted to him. There is nothing on record to show that after termination the accused was allowed to continue Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 10 keeping the vehicle. On the contrary, the prosecution has also proved the legal notice dated 31.03.2014 Ex. PW1/C and other communications calling upon him to return the articles. The record, therefore, clearly shows not only that the employment came to an end, but also that the accused was specifically asked to return the company property.
22. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was not returned. The recovery of the vehicle from the residence of the accused on 25.02.2015 has been proved by PW4 and PW5. Their evidence is consistent on this aspect. Nothing material has come out in their cross-examination to discredit the fact of recovery. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the accused did not say that he had returned the vehicle before that date. On the contrary, his own stand is that he had retained the vehicle and had written to the company that he would return it once his dues were cleared. This stand itself supports the prosecution case regarding continued retention.
23. The defence of the accused is that the company had not cleared his legitimate dues and that, for that reason, he retained the vehicle and other assets. It is true that PW5 admitted in cross- examination that the accused had taken such a stand during investigation and that the IO did not investigate the question of alleged dues. It is also true that PW1 did not have detailed knowledge regarding bonus, incentives, ex gratia or settlement of accounts. These aspects do show that the investigation was not complete in relation to the service-related monetary claims of the accused.
Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 11
24. However, even if it is assumed that there was a dispute regarding dues, that by itself did not give the accused any legal right to continue retaining the employer's property after termination of service. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had any lien over the company vehicle. There is no document to show that the company ever permitted him to hold back the vehicle as security for alleged unpaid dues. The vehicle had been given to him because of his employment. Once the employment ended and the company demanded return of the vehicle, the accused was duty bound to hand it back. If he had any grievance regarding salary, bonus, incentives or ex gratia, he had remedies available under law. He could not, on his own, decide to keep the company's vehicle till his claims were satisfied.
25. Seen in this light, the explanation given by the accused does not help him. In fact, it explains why he deliberately did not return the vehicle. His own case is that he intentionally retained the company car and other assets so that his dues may be settled. Such intentional retention of entrusted property, despite termination and despite demand, amounts to use and retention of that property in violation of the terms of entrustment. For an offence of criminal breach of trust, it is not necessary in every case that the accused must have sold or physically disposed of the property. If the entrusted property is deliberately retained and used contrary to the legal contract under which it was given, the offence can still be made out.
26. The contention that the matter is purely civil in nature also RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 12 cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. It is settled that merely because a civil dispute also exists, criminal liability does not disappear if the ingredients of the penal offence are otherwise proved. In the present case, the prosecution has proved entrustment, termination of service, demand for return, deliberate non-return, and later recovery from the accused. The explanation offered by the accused only shows the reason for his retention. It does not make such retention lawful.
27. The defence also questioned the authority of PW1 to lodge the complaint. On this aspect, PW6 has proved the board resolution Ex. PW6/A and the power of attorney Ex. PW6/B. It is correct that PW6 joined the company later and did not have personal knowledge of the incident. It is also correct that he had not seen the originals of those documents. Even so, the core prosecution case does not fail on this ground. The company's grievance was brought before the police, the FIR was registered on the basis of a court order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the main facts of entrustment, termination, non-return and recovery have been proved by substantive evidence on record. Therefore, the challenge to authority does not take the matter much further.
28. The Court is conscious that PW1 lacked personal knowledge on some aspects and that the IO did not verify the accused's claimed dues in detail. These are deficiencies in investigation. However, they do not go to the root of the case. The crucial question is not whether some amount was due to the accused. Even if one assumes in his favour that some dues were pending, he was still not legally entitled to keep the company vehicle Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 13 after his employment ended and after demand for its return had been made. The essential facts making out the offence under Section 408 IPC remain established.
29. The evidence of PW3 regarding arrest and disclosure statement is only of limited corroborative value. PW2 is a formal witness. The real strength of the prosecution case lies in the testimony of PW1 regarding entrustment, termination and demand, the testimony of PW4 and PW5 regarding recovery, the admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C., and the accused's own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. showing that he retained the car pending settlement of dues. When all these pieces are read together, they form a clear and reliable chain.
30. So far as Section 411 IPC is concerned, the same is not made out. The accused was not a person who received the vehicle as stolen property from someone else. His possession originally flowed from lawful entrustment by the company itself. If any offence is made out on these facts, it is one of criminal breach of trust by the person to whom the property had been entrusted. In such circumstances, the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC cannot stand.
31. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was entrusted with the company vehicle in his capacity as an employee, that his services were terminated, that he was called upon to return the vehicle, that despite such demand he intentionally retained the vehicle without any lawful authority, Digitally RAJ signed and that the same was later recovered from his possession. The KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 4662/2017 STATE Vs. TUSHAR SETH FIR No. 662/2014 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 408/411 IPC 14 plea regarding alleged dues does not take away the criminality of such conduct. On the contrary, it shows conscious retention of entrusted property in violation of the terms under which it had been given. The offence under Section 408 IPC is, therefore, clearly made out.
32. Accordingly, accused Tushar Seth is held guilty and is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC.
33. The accused is acquitted of the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC.
34. Copy of the judgment be given to convict free of cost against acknowledgment, as per rules.
35. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence.
RAJ
Announced in open court Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
on 17.04.2026 SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/17.04.2026 Note: This judgment contains 14 (Fourteen) pages and having my signature on each page.
RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/17.04.2026