Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

terms of the provisions contained in section 406 of IPC.

21. Though, learned Additional Advocate General argued that entrustment of physical possession of the property is not essential for the offence defined under Section 405 of IPC because the expression "whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property" clearly negatives the contention that since physical possession was not exclusively transferred to the bank, there cannot be a case of entrustment but after having carefully read section 405 of IPC, this Court finds it difficult to accept the aforesaid contention of learned Additional Advocate General. The term 'entrusted' found in section 405 IPC governs not only the words "with the property" immediately following it but also the words" or with any dominion over the property" occurring thereafter, meaning thereby before there can be any entrustment, the entrustment carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal, (1968) 2SCR 408,wherein it has been held as under:-

27. In the instant case, a serious dispute has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective party as to whether on the face of the allegations, an offence of criminal breach of trust is constituted or not. In our view, the expression 'entrusted with property' or 'with any dominion over property' has been used in wide sense in Section 405 I.P.C. Such expression includes all case in which goods are entrusted, that is, voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and dishonestly disposed of in violation of law or in violation of contract. The expression 'entrusted appearing in Section 405 I.P.C. is not necessarily a term of law. It has wide and different implication in different context. It is, however, necessary that the ownership or beneficial interest in the ownership of the property entrusted in respect of which offence is alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit. The expression 'Trust' in Section 405 I.P.C. is a comprehensive expression and has been used to denote various kinds of relationship like the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailer and bailee, master and servant, pledger and pledger. When some goods are hypothecated by a person to another person. the ownership of the goods still remains with the person who has hypothecated such goods. The property in respect of which criminal breach of trust can be committed must necessarily be the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be in other person and the offender must hold such property in trust for such other person or for his benefit. In a case of pledge, the pledged article belongs to some other person or for his benefit. In a case of Pledge, the pledged article belongs to some other person but the same is kept in trust by the pledgee. In the instant case, a floating charge was made on the goods by way of security to cover up credit facility. In our view, in such case for disposing of the goods covering the security to cover up credit facility. In our view, In such case for disposing of the goods covering the security to cover up credit facility. In our view, in such case for disposing of the goods covering the security against credit facility the offence of criminal breach of trust is not committed.
.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it, however, appears to us that the Respondents moved the High Court only in 1991 although the first Fir was filed in 1987 and the second was filed in 1989. The CBI, therefore, Got sufficient time to complete the investigation for the purpose of framing the charge".

23. It is quite apparent from the reading of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that expression "entrusted with property" or "with any dominion over property" has been used in a wide sense in section 405 IPC, which includes all cases in which goods are entrusted, that is, voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and dishonestly disposed of in violation of law or in violation of contract. To attract case under section 405 IPC, it is necessary that ownership and beneficial interest in the ownership of the property entrusted in respect of which offence alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit.

by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 of IPC".

30. Leaving everything aside, this Court after having perused the material available on record has no hesitation to conclude that evidentiary material on record, if accepted would not reasonably connect the petitioner with crime. Neither there is sufficient evidence to conclude that petitioner had an intention from very beginning to cheat the bank nor there is any material to suggest that petitioner unauthorizedly/illegally sold the property/machinery entrusted to it by the bank, rather as per own case of the prosecution same was hypothecated. Since ownership of the goods hypothecated in favour of the bank continues to be remained with the person, who has hypothecated such goods, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner under sections 405 IPC. The expression "entrusted" used in section 405 IPC, makes it clear that ownership or beneficial interest in the ownership of property entrusted in respect of which offence alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the accused. Similarly to constitute the offence under section 420 of IPC, cheating as defined under section 415 of IPC is required to be proved, which consists of fraudulently and dishonestly inducing a person by deceiving him to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Two essential ingredients of offence would be (i) to make a false statement so as to deceive any person .