Criminal Breach Of Trust Under Ipc
Definition under the IPC
Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines Criminal Breach of Trust as follows:
"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'."
Section 406 prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust:
Imprisonment up to 3 years, or
Fine, or
Both.
Essential Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust
Entrustment: The accused must be entrusted with property or have dominion over it.
Property: The property must be movable.
Dishonest Intention: The accused must dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property.
Violation of Trust: The accused must act in violation of the trust reposed in him.
Possession: The accused must have legal possession or control over the property.
Explanation of Terms
Entrusted: The property must be given to the accused in a legal or lawful manner with an expectation of return or safe keeping.
Dominion over Property: Control over property without necessarily owning it.
Dishonest Misappropriation: Using the property for one’s own benefit without authority.
Important Case Laws on Criminal Breach of Trust
1. K.K Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 549
Facts: The accused, a bank official, was entrusted with funds and misappropriated them.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that mere possession does not amount to entrustment unless there is a lawful delivery with an intention to create a legal relationship of trust.
Significance: Clarified the importance of lawful entrustment for Section 405.
2. R.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1289
Facts: A clerk entrusted with government money diverted it for his use.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld conviction, emphasizing dishonest misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty.
Significance: Highlighted the fiduciary relationship and dishonest intention as crucial elements.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Vasudeo Ganesh Patil, AIR 1969 SC 783
Facts: Accused misappropriated money meant for cooperative society.
Holding: The Court held that criminal breach of trust applies even if the property is used temporarily but with dishonest intention.
Significance: Extended interpretation to cover temporary unauthorized use.
4. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393
Facts: Accused was entrusted with public money and was charged under Section 406.
Holding: The Court confirmed that entrustment must be proved and that intention to dishonestly misappropriate is essential.
Significance: Reinforced proof of entrustment and dishonesty.
5. Ram Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1003
Facts: The accused, a contractor, was entrusted with government materials and misused them.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that a contractual relationship can create entrustment.
Significance: Clarified that entrustment can arise from contracts.
6. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 2079
Facts: Accused was entrusted with property for sale proceeds and was accused of misappropriation.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized that to prove breach of trust, the prosecution must establish entrustment and dishonest conversion.
Significance: Reiterated the burden of proof lies on prosecution.
Summary Table of Key Elements and Case Law
| Case Name | Key Point | Contribution to Understanding of Criminal Breach of Trust |
|---|---|---|
| K.K Verma v. Union of India | Lawful entrustment essential | Entrustment must be legal and intentional |
| R.K. Sharma v. Rajasthan | Dishonest misappropriation of government money | Fiduciary duty and dishonesty crucial |
| State of Maharashtra v. Patil | Temporary unauthorized use counts | Extended scope of misuse |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | Proof of entrustment and dishonest intent | Burden on prosecution |
| Ram Swaroop v. Madhya Pradesh | Entrustment through contract | Contractual entrustment recognized |
| Tukaram S. Dighole v. Maharashtra | Burden of proof and dishonesty | Prosecution must establish key elements |
Conclusion
Criminal breach of trust under IPC Sections 405 and 406 protects property entrusted to a person and penalizes dishonest misuse. Entrustment and dishonest intention are the cornerstone of this offence. The case laws clarify that both legal entrustment and breach with dishonest intent must be clearly proved for conviction. The courts have consistently upheld strict scrutiny on these elements to balance protection of trust and prevention of wrongful prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments