The central legal point established is that for the offense of criminal breach of trust, there must be clear evidence of entrustment of property to the accused and proof of dishonest intention.

1. The appeal is filed by the State against the judgment in CC 390 of 1980 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur acquitting the accused. Respondent (A1) along with A2 were charged under S.409 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that A1 took charge as melsanthi of Sree Vallabha Temple, Thiruvalla on 13-11-1978 while the second accused was already working as melsanthi, that they were entrusted with valuable articles viz., 'Thirumukham' made of gold weighing 322 Gms and 500 M. Gms, a silver chain 2 pieces of golden bangles and one 'Copy' made of gold weighing 2 cm with total value of Rs. 29,900/- and that they misappropriated the same during 14-11-1978 and 18-2-1979.

3. It was PW1 who gave the first information statement before the Police. He is the manager of the temple. P.W.1 deposed that the temple was under his supervision, that the 'Thirumukham' and other valuable articles were entrusted to the accused and that they misappropriated the same. PW 2 stated that A1 took charge as melsanti on 13-11-1978. According to him, "Thirumugham" and other valuable articles were entrusted to A1 and A2 as per records.

4. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence is hardly sufficient to make out a case of criminal breach of trust as against A1 and A2 as there is hardly any evidence of entrustment of the articles to them at any point of time.

5. Prosecution relies mainly on Ext. P-4 to prove the alleged entrustment of the valuable articles to the accused. Ext. P-4 does not show that A1 and A2 were entrusted with valuable articles. Clause.16 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual provides that portable valuables kept in the Devaswom should be entrusted to the Devaswom subordinates only if they are required for daily or immediate use and that they should be kept under the personal custody of the responsible officer if they are not required for daily use. The said clause also provides that acknowledgement should be obtained from such subordinates in a book kept for the purpose in Form No. 30 by the responsible officer and countersigned by the head of the institution. It is the admitted case that the "Thirumugham" and other valuable articles Wire not required for daily or immediate use in the temple. That being the position it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that the above articles were handed over to A1 and A2. Ext. P-4 does not show that there was any physical verification at the time when the articles was handed over to A1 and A2. Nor is there any evidence to the effect that acknowledgements were obtained from them in Form No. 30 as enjoined in Clause.l6.

6. To constitute criminal breach of trust it is necessary for the prosecution to establish entrustment of property to the accused. Or that there must be evidence that the accused obtained dominion over the property. There must be evidence of misappropriation or conversion to one's own use or use in violation of any legal direction or of any legal contract. It is also essential that the misappropriation or conversion or disposal was with dishonest intention. If no dishonest intention is proved there cannot be an offence of criminal breach of trust. Sections dealing with criminal breach of trust are S.405 to 409. They are intended to punish offences of which dishonesty is the essential factor. Mere existence of the accused's dominion over property is not enough to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust. It must be further shown that accused's domination was the result of entrustment. For the purpose of S.405, it is not necessary that entrustment should be express. An implied entrustment would suffice. In the case in hand there cannot be any implied entrustment of the property in view of Clause.16 of the Devaswom Manual. S.409 can be invoked in a case where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused being in any manner entrusted with the property or with dominion over the property in