Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. Similarly, Section 406 I.P.C. also I do not find is attracted in the case in hand. It talks of punishment for "criminal breach of trust" which is defined in Section 405 I.P.C. and both these provisions read as under:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

26. Section 406 IPC deals with offence of criminal breach of trust which is defined in Section 405 IPC. The first requirement of Section 406 IPC is 'entrustment of property' by victim to Accused but there is no such entrustment. As per complaint, dues payable by Accused-Applicants according to averments made by Complainant satisfy liability as 'debt' but cannot be treated to be entrustment of property by Complainant to Accused persons and when there is no entrustment, question of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of such property to own use by such persons does not arise. Even Explanation 1 and 2 of Section 405 IPC are not attracted in the case in hand since there is no deduction of wages by employer for deposit in concern fund under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, Section 406 is not at all attracted.