The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC requires proof of entrustment and misappropriation of property, and the actions of the accused must meet the specific elements of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2009 by which the appellate Court has confirmed his conviction under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

2. In G.R Case No.1303 of 1995, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-under section 409 IPC.

3. Lesliganj P.S Case No.72 of 1995 was lodged on the basis of written report of the Block Development Officer, Lesliganj making an allegation against the petitioner that he misappropriated Rs.7,747/-and did not complete construction of the building.

4. A charge under sections 406 and 420 IPC was framed against the petitioner which he denied and claimed trial. In the trial, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses to prove that Rupee One Lac from M.P quota was given to the petitioner to complete Project No. MP/3/92-93 which was in relation to construction of the High School building at Oriya.

5. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau, on appreciation of materials laid before him, held that the charge under section 420 IPC is not proved. However, the petitioner has been convicted under section 409 IPC for the following reasons:

“15. In view of above I find that prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact that accused was appointed as a contractor to complete the government work of construction of school building of Oriya High School. It has also been proved that accused being an agent received Rs.98,000/-(rupees ninety eight thousand) as an advance to construct the school building which is an entrustment of property to accused. It has also been proved that accused did not complete work of Rs.7,747/-(rupees seven thousand seven hundred forty seven) and when the rest amount was demanded he failed to return it to the concerned authority.

P.W.2 clearly states in his deposition about evaluation of the work and its entry in measurement book, act of accused of not returning the remaining amount, amounts to criminal breach of trust.

16. As far as defence contention that accused has already paid the said amount in Block Nazarat and that documents have not been proved, so accused cannot be held guilty has no teeth. Here I find that the said amount was deposited on 22.12.95 i.e. after the filing of the FIR in this case on 05.12.95, it also appears that the said amount was deposited by the order of the District and sessions Judge passed in A.B.A. So in the above circumstance accused cannot absolve himself from the liability of committing the offence u/s.409 of IPC. As far as non proof of certain documents are concerned I find that documents have not been proved in extraordinary circumstance because as per letter dated 28.8.06 of B.D.O. Lesliganj to this court. I find that record of the above project was burnt due to blast and fire done by extremists on 13.10.04. Learned APP, has also filed letter No. 605 dated 03.7.07 address to himself by B.D.O. Lesliganj enclosed with photo copy of detail inventory of the burnt articles in the block and photo copy of written report of FIR filed by B.D.O. Lesliganj in Lesliganj P.S. informing the blast done by extremists, which also shows that records related to work being done from the funds of M.P. quota were destroyed (vide serial No. 13 of the inventory). In the above circumstances I find that oral versions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are consistent and coherent with respect to the fact of entrustment of the said money to accused and its misappropriation by accused. I find the version of witnesses are unblemished. In view of above I find accused is guilty for the charge u/s. 409 of IPC.”

6. As noticed above, the appellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2009, holding as under:

“14. With this view of the fact and the discussions made above, I find that on entrustment and factum of misappropriation had been and proved by the prosecution and accordingly the appellant was convicted u/s.409 IPC and sentenced properly and I also find that th