Joy Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2001
So that dictum is not applicable to the facts of this case
though the decision reported in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal
Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700) was referred to in that decision.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 128 (3.72 seconds)Documents citing
The State Of Gujarat vs Jaswantlal Nathalal on 23 November, 1967
Joy Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2001
So that dictum is not applicable to the facts of this case
though the decision reported in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal
Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700) was referred to in that decision.
Milan Anandan Son Of Sri A.K. Anandan, ... vs States Of U.P., Through The Secretary, ... on 29 September, 2005
Identical question also came for consideration in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal, AIR 1968 SC 700. In that case the contractor was allotted 10 tons cement for the construction work, The contractor, out of the released 100 bags of cement sent only 60 bags of cement at the site and remaining 40 bags were sent to godown. The contractor paid for the amount of cement. Point arose whether for such transaction of sale the offence under Sections 405 and 409 could be construed. It was held that:
Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao vs The State Acb, Ciu on 7 January, 2025
168. A trust contemplated by Section 405 would arise
only when there is an entrustment of property or dominion
over property. There has, therefore, to be a property
belonging to someone which is entrusted to the person
24
accused of the offence under Section 405. The
entrustment of property creates a trust which is only an
obligation annexed to the ownership of the property and
arises out of a confidence reposed and accepted by the
owner. This is what has been laid in State of
Gujarat v. JaswantlalNathalal [AIR 1968 SC 700 : (1968) 2
SCR 408] .
K Nandakumar vs S Nagaraj on 22 May, 2026
65. The term entrustment has been explained by the Apex Court in
State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal, (1968) 2 SCR 408, to the
following effect:
Umesh Rameshbhai Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat on 16 January, 2025
In State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal[2], this
Court in paragraph 8 has observed that a mere transaction
of sale cannot amount to an entrustment.
Sanjay Pandey & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 2 December, 2019
Placing reliance on the decisions of Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh
& Another reported in (2009)14 SCC 696, the Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Vs. Devender Anand & Ors.(Non-reportable) of criminal appeal no.834 of 2017;
Arun Kumar & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2006 SCC
online P&H 669; State of Gujarat Vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in (1968)2
SCR 408, Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that no fraudulent
or dishonest intention existed at the time of execution of the agreement for sell
and allegations relating to non-execution of the sale-deed in terms of the
agreement cannot be termed as cheating. He has further contended that the
allegations contained in the First Information Report only disclosed a civil
dispute and the de facto complainant availed of that remedy and failed to obtain
the relief from Civil Court.
Rohit Singhal S/O N.S.Singhal vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
It has been held in
State of Gujarat v. Jaswantial Nathalal 405 IPC governs
not only the words "with the property immediately
following it but also the words "or with any dominion
over the property" ((1965) 2 SCR 4291.
Ahmed Ramlan vs Gertie Mathias And Ors. on 8 April, 1976
13. Under the Act and the Scheme an employee is statutorily made liable to pay his contribution to the Fund. Statutory liability is also cast on the employer to deduct the contribution of an employee from the wages of the employee. Hence once the deduction is made, the employee will have no control over the sum so deducted. He cannot exercise any act or acts of ownership over the sum so deducted. Hence after a particular sum is deducted out of the wages of an employee, the employee no longer remains the owner of the said sum. Therefore, applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal (1968 (2) SCJ 334 : 1968 Cri LJ 803, it follows that an employer in whose possession such sum is cannot be, for the purpose of Section 405, Indian Penal Code, regarded as having been entrusted with the sum.
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2022
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by the
learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant as well
as the provisions of Section 420 and Section 409 of IPC and the judgment cited
by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Jaswantlal Nathalal (supra) and also considering the fact that he is in custody
since 3.7.2021, this court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail. Hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the
application is allowed.