SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Raj) 448

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.
Radhey Shyam - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Revision No. 375 of 1979.
Decided On : 1-02-1987

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: None.
For the State: B.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor.

A person who is entrusted with property and who misappropriates that property for his own use is guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - THEFT - SECTION 381, 408 IPC - INTERPRETATION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CUSTODY OF PROPERTY - MISAPPROPRIATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27 - CONFESSION - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - DISTINCTION - RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY - CORROBORATION - CONVICTION - UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Area Organiser in the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, reported a theft of an iron safe and a gunny bag containing Rs. 3,600 from the Commission's center. The police investigated and recovered the stolen property and cash from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner was charged with theft under Section 381 IPC and, alternatively, with criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC. The trial court convicted the petitioner of both offenses, but the appellate court acquitted him of theft and maintained his conviction for criminal breach of trust.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petitioner was guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC. The court found that the petitioner had custody of the iron safe and the cash, and that he had misappropriated the cash for his own use. The court also found that the petitioner's confession and the recovery of the stolen property corroborated each other and established the petitioner's guilt.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was guilty of theft under Section 381 IPC or criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC. 2. Whether the petitioner's confession and the recovery of the stolen property were admissible in evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC because he had custody of the iron safe and the cash, and he had misappropriated the cash for his own use. The court distinguished theft from criminal breach of trust, holding that theft requires the taking of property from the possession of another person, while criminal breach of trust involves the misappropriation of property that is already in the offender's possession. 2. The court held that the petitioner's confession and the recovery of the stolen property were admissible in evidence. The court found that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that it was corroborated by the recovery of the stolen property. The court also found that the recovery of the stolen property was admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which provides that a confession may be corroborated by other evidence.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld his conviction for criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. - In the month of September, 1975 Radhey Shyam Sharma petitioner was posted as Assistant Area Organiser in the area office at Myajlar of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (for short, here in after 'the Commission'). On September 14. 1975, the petitioner made a report to the Incharge Police Out-post Myajlar that during the night intervening 13th and 14th September, 1975 there had been a theft of an iron safe and a gunny bag from the centre of the Commission at Myajlar. There was cash amount of Rs. 3,600/-, inside the iron safe. It was requested by the petitioner that the case may be investigated. The Police Out-post Myajlar was within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sam in District Jaisalmer. While Guman Singh PW 9 was Incharge of the Police Out-post, Myajlar, Harkishan PW 7 was The Officer-Incharge of the Police Station, Sam. On that date, no Station House Officer was posted at Police Station, Sam Hari Kishan PW 7, who was only a Head Constable, was the Officer-in-charge. On September 16, 1975 Hari Kishan PW 7 had come to Jaisalmer in connection with some official duty At Jaisalmer, Raghunath Singh S.H.O., Police Station, Jaisalmer (PW 12) met Hari Kishan and told the latter that there had been a theft at Myajalar and the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer had directed him to proceed to Jaisalmer. Accordingly, both Raghunath Singh PW 12 and Harikishan came to Myajalar where Gumansingh, Officer-in-charge of the Police Out-post handed over the First Information Report Ex. P 7 which had been made as aforesaid by the petitioner to Hari Kishan on Sept 16, 1975 at 7.00 p m. Report Ex.P 7 was sent through Constable Ranidan Singh to the Police Station, Sam for registering a case under Section 380, I.P.C. and the case was registered on September 17, 1975 at 1.30 p m. at the Police Station. Both Raghunath Singh and Hari Kishan inspected the site of the office of the centre and prepared the site plan Ex. P 8 with Explanatory memorandum of the site Ex. P 2 on September 16, 1975. The petitioner Radhey Shyam Sharma was arrested on September 17, 1975 and a key No. 627521 of the stolen iron-safe was recovered from the left hand side pocket of the shirt of Radhey Shyam Sharma which was seized by the Police. Prosecution case is that the petitioner Radhey Shyam Sharma, while in custody of police, gave an information Ex P 9 on September 17, 1975 that the stolen iron safe was dropped in a well towards north of village Myajlar and the amount, which was inside the chest of the iron-safe, has been concealed in his suit case. In pursuance of this information, Raghunath and Hari Kishan recovered currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,700/- which were produced by the petitioner from out of the suit case in the residential portion of his house and the same were seized by the police under the seizure memo Ex. P 4 in the presence of Ladu Ram and Dheer Singh Motbirs Both the Police Officers went to the well pointed out by the petitioner. The well was about 140 feet in depth in which there was water about 15 feet depthwise. Bhanwar Singh s/o Bulidan was directed to go inside the well who found that a Godrej small sized iron-safe wrapped in a gunny bag and weighing about 20 kilograms was lying inside the well. The iron-safe with gunny-bag was taken out from the well and the same was identified by Dedasa s/o Kesrimal, an employee of the Commission, as belonging to the Commission. The iron-safe and the gunny bag was seized by the police under the seizure memo Ex. P 5 in the presence of Ladhu Ram and Dheer Singh Motbirs. A further information Ex P 10 is alleged to have been given by the petitioner on September 20, 1975 to Hari Kishan PW 7 that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,870.84p. were concealed in the 'niwar' of the cot of his house in an envelope. This amount was recovered from the place pointed out by the petitioner on September 21, 1975 in the presence of Najumal and Laxmi Chand Motbirs by Hari Kishan PW 7 and seized under t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top