1. Entrustment of property for use — Dispute over nature of agreement (hire vs. purchase) — Complaint for criminal breach of trust under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th December 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Mohammad Sulaiman, Appellant
Versus
Md. Ayub and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1962.
Advocates:
P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, P.K.Rose, S.C.MAJUMDER
P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, P.K.Rose, S.C.MAJUMDER
A dispute over the nature of an agreement (hire vs. purchase) is civil. Merely claiming ownership in correspondence, without changing the use of the entrusted property or disposing of it, does not constitute dishonest misappropriation or conversion under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405 and 406 - Criminal breach of trust - Dishonest misappropriation or conversion - To constitute an offence under Section 405, there must be dishonest misappropriation, conversion to own use, or dishonest use or disposal of property in violation of a legal contract - Where property is entrusted for use, and the user continues to use it in the same manner, merely asserting a claim of ownership or a different contractual agreement through correspondence does not amount to misappropriation or conversion, as there is no change in the use of the property. (Paras 3 and 4)
(B) Civil vs. Criminal Dispute - Where the primary conflict between parties relates to the nature of the agreement under which property was entrusted (e.g., whether it was a hire agreement or a hire-purchase agreement), such a dispute is essentially of a civil nature and does not automatically attract criminal liability for breach of trust unless an act of misappropriation or disposal is established. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
An individual hired a motor for a monthly rent. After several months, the individual wrote a letter to the owner claiming that the motor had been purchased under a trial agreement and that the full purchase price had been paid. The owner denied this claim, asserting that the motor was only hired and that hire charges were outstanding, subsequently filing a complaint for criminal breach of trust. The High Court had convicted the individual, holding that the letter indicated a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the motor was handed over to the individual for his use. The letter sent by the individual did not result in any change in the use of the motor, nor was the motor disposed of or parted with to any third party. Consequently, the act of writing the letter to put forward a different version of the agreement did not constitute misappropriation or conversion.
Issues: Whether asserting a claim of ownership over entrusted property through a letter, while continuing to use the property in the same manner as originally entrusted, amounts to dishonest misappropriation or conversion to own use under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal breach of trust requires an act of misappropriation, conversion, or disposal in violation of a contract. If the use of the property remains consistent with the original entrustment and the dispute is limited to the terms of the agreement, it remains a civil dispute. A mere claim of ownership in correspondence, without any act of disposal or change in use, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
Result: Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether asserting ownership of entrusted property via correspondence constitutes dishonest misappropriation or conversion to own use under Section 405, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. A dispute over the nature of an agreement is civil; mere assertion of ownership without changing the use or disposal of property is not misappropriation. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Criminal breach of trust requires dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or disposal of property; mere assertion of ownership without changing the property's use does not satisfy Section 405, IPC. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction set aside — Appellant acquitted. (Para 4 )
6. Does a dispute over the nature of an agreement (hire vs. purchase) automatically constitute criminal breach of trust?
No. A dispute regarding whether property was entrusted under a hire agreement or a purchase agreement is essentially of a civil nature and does not, by itself, establish criminal intent. (Para 3 )
7. Does writing a letter claiming ownership of entrusted property amount to misappropriation or conversion under Section 405, IPC?
No. If the use of the property remains unchanged and the person continues to use it as originally entrusted, merely asserting ownership in a letter does not constitute misappropriation or conversion. (Para 3 )
8. What constitutes dishonest use or disposal of property in violation of a contract under Section 405, IPC?
It requires an act that changes the use of the property or involves parting with possession, such as selling the property, in violation of the contract, rather than merely disputing the contract's terms. (Para 4 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.: This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court. The appellant hired a Westinghouse, D. C. motor from the Modern Electrical works (hereinafter referred to as the works) on April 4, 1958, on a rent of Rs. 40 per month. The hiring period was to last for at least three months and it was agreed that if the motor or parts thereof were lost or damaged by the appellant, he would be bound to pay the whole cost of the motor and the parts. The motor remained in the use of the appellant and hire-charges were paid by him from April 1958 to January 1959. Thereafter it is said that no hire-charges were paid. On June 8, 1959, the appellant wrote a letter to the Works in which he said that he had purchased the motor in question for Rs. 600 on condition that the same would be tried for three months, and if it was found satisfactory the money would be paid and the purchase completed. The letter also stated that the agreement was that it the motor was not found satisfactory, the appellant would pay three months hire at Rs. 40 per month and the motor would be returned thereafter. Finally, the appellant said in the letter that the Works had been paid Rs. 620 in all and thus the purchase had been completed. The appellant, therefore, requested the Works to give him a slip saying that the motor had been sold to the appellant, as no further money was due to the Works. On June 15, 1959, the Works sent a reply to the appellant denying that any such agreement as was alleged by the appellant had been made. It was also denied that Rs. 620 had been paid, and therefore, the purchase was complete. Finally it was said that the appellant had only paid Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 were still due from him for the months of February to June 1959. The appellant replied to this letter in which he reiterated his stand taken in the earlier letter and gave details of how the payment of Rs. 620 had been made. Thereafter the Works filed a complaint through its servant Mohd. Ayub on July 1, 1959 in which after stating its case it urged that the appellant had committed criminal breach of trust and was, therefore guilty under S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On this complaint the appellant was summoned by the Presidency Magistrate 9th Court, Calcutta and after taking some evidence for the prosecution, the Magistrate discharged the appellant holding that there was no satisfactory evidence of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the motor by the appellant to his own use and that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature. Mohd. Ayub then went in revision to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of discharge and directed further enquiry in the matter by another Magistrate. The case then went back to the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, who eventually found the appellant not guilty and ordered his acquittal on the ground that there was dispute between the parties as to the actual nature of the transaction and it could not be said that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant to misappropriate the motor: Mohd. Ayub then filed an appeal before the High Court under S. 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Eventually the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, and it came to the conclusion that it was clear from the letter of June 8, 1959 (to which we have already referred) that the same could not have been written unless the appellant dishonestly in violation of the entrustment wanted to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself. It was further held that the letter did not show that there was a bona fide claim of ownership over the property and the claim was merely a pretence which could not exonerate the appellant from being punished under S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant then applied for a certificate to enable him to file an appeal to this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us
