Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 ba discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or wilfullv suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'.

In order to establish an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust, the following ingredients must be established (1) entrusting any person with property or with dominion over prooertv* (2) the Person entrusted

(a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that DroDertv., -or.

(b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do, in violation

(i) of any direction of law urescrib-ing the mode in which such trust is to ba -discharged; or

(ii) of any legal contract, express or imDlied, touchine the discharge of such trust.

7. An analysis of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code shows that one of the cases in which criminal breach of trust is committed is the dishonest use or disposal of property in violation of any legal contract which the accused made regarding the discharge of the trust. In the present case, according to the evidence produced as disclosed by Ext. Ka-17. relevant part of which has been quoted above, the opposite party wrote to the Principal undertaking to deliver the refrigerators at Gyanpur by April 7 1965, According to the evidence led at the trial, the opposite party failed to discharge his trust in the manner undertaken by him. He delivered the refrigerators at Gyanpur not repaired for which purpose the refrigerators had been entrusted to him, but only the skeleton of the refrigerators after having removed therefrom the electric motor and other material parts. The cause of action for the prosecution of the opposite party as disclosed by the prosecution, was his illegal omission to deliver the properties entrusted to him in proper order. The criminal breach of trust, consequently, if the prosecution evidence is believed, was committed at Gyanpur. Consequently both under Section 177 of the Code as well as under the later part of Section 181(2) of the Code, the Courts at Gyanpur were competent to inquire into the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by the opposite party as well as to try him for that offence.

11. The Bench after quoting Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. went, on to observe as under:

This section falls into two parts. The first part is a positive part and deals, with dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property. To charge a person under this part of the section there should be an allegation that at a particular time and place that person has dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use property which was entrusted to him. Now the second part of the section may be a negative part. It consists of dishonestly using or disposing of property in violation of (a) any direction, of law, or (b) any legal contract touching the discharge of the trust. Where there-is a violation of a direction of law or a. legal contract, the proof of that violation may be by negative evidence that the direction of law or the contract has not been fulfilled. We are of opinion that. where the direction of law or the contract reauires that the accused should dispose of the property at a particular place, then the Court having jurisdiction at that place will have jurisdiction to try the offence of the second part of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code where there is a charge that the accused has-failed to coniDlv with the direction of law or the leeal contract and has failed to carry out his duty at that place. The first part of Section 405 will hdpIv where it is known, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted to-his own use certain property at a particular place, and the iurisdiction to try the accused will be at the place where that dishonest misappropriation or conversion has taken place. But where it is alleged that the accused has failed to account for the property, then the second part of Section 405 will apply and jurisdiction exists at the place where the Dro-perty should have been delivered bv the accused.