Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

St. Vs. Gian Chand FIR No.16/01, P.S. R.K. Puram

28.Coming to Section 406 IPC,Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust. Section 406 IPC reads as under:­ "whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"

Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust. The relevant portion of the definition reads 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 prescriting the mode in which such trust is to be charged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or will fully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

29. As regards section 406 IPC, it be observed that in order to establish the commission of offence u/s 406 IPC the necessary ingredient of section 405 IPC are to be proved. Hence, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the entrustment having been made in favour of accused, their dominion/control over the articles entrusted and subsequent misappropriation. The misappropriation tantamount to conversion of articles by the accused to their own use and consumption.

32. As regards section 406 IPC, it be observed that in order to establish the commission of offence u/s 406 IPC the necessary ingredient of section 405 IPC are to be proved. Hence, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the entrustment having been made in favour of accused, his dominion/control over the articles entrusted and subsequent misappropriation. The misappropriation tantamount to conversion of articles by the accused to their own use and consumption.

37. In judgment of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 138 (2007), DLT 152, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed the mandate of for preparation of list of dowry articles at the time of marriage duly signed from bride side as well as from groom side, in terms of provision of 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the increasing trend of making exaggerated claims by the complainant and his family regarding Istridhan given to the complainant was also noticed. To curb the same, it was held that the complainant and her family members, are bound to disclose the source of such expenditure on marriage. In St. Vs. Gian Chand FIR No.16/01, P.S. R.K. Puram the instant case, no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage signed by both sides. The complainant in her testimony while describing jewellery given to her in marriage by her parents, mentioned certain gold ornament which do not find mention in list of stridhan Ex. PW 1/A. No bill of such jewellery has also been produced. Apart from that the complainant also stated in her evidence that his father was earning only Rs. 4500/­ p.m at the time of her marriage in 1996. But she claimed that her father spent Rs 2 lacs or more in her marriage. The prosecution has not explained the source of expenditure incurred by father of the complainant in her marriage, which appears to be much beyond his capacity. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Gian Chand is also acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC. Bail bonds & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on this th day of 30 August 2012 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate: