Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jai Singh Sekhon and A.S.Nehra JJ.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Prem Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1985,
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 1994
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SECTION 409 IPC - ENTANGLEMENT AND MISAPPROPRIATION - PUBLIC SERVANT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION: 1. Entrustment involves handing over property or dominion over property to a person with confidence in that person, creating a fiduciary relationship. 2. Criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property, or dishonest use or disposal of property. 3. The accused must be a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney, or agent. 4. The accused must have been entrusted with the property in question or with dominion over it. 5. The accused must have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of it. CHEATING - SECTION 420 IPC - INGREDIENTS AND PROOF: 1. Deceiving a person into delivering or retaining property. 2. Inducing the person to do so by fraudulent or dishonest means. 3. The person acting upon such inducement. 4. The accused acting fraudulently or dishonestly. 5. The act causing or likely to cause damage or harm to the person deceived. FORGERY - SECTIONS 465/471 IPC - ELEMENTS AND PROOF: 1. Fraudulently using a forged document as genuine. 2. Knowledge or reason to believe the document is forged. 3. Wrongful loss or gain caused to any person. CONCLUSION: 1. The prosecution failed to prove entrustment or dominion over the property in question. 2. No evidence of wrongful loss or gain was presented. 3. The accused's actions were a breach of duty, not criminal breach of trust. 4. No offense under Sections 409, 420, 465, or 471 IPC was established.
Fact of the Case:
Prem Singh, Superintendent of Rural Artisan Training Centre, Hansi, was accused of misappropriating government funds by falsifying documents and accounts. An investigation revealed that he had embezzled a total of Rs. 2,36,619.50 paise by purchasing textile goods from private sources and supplying them to different departments as products of the Rural Artisan Training Centre.
Finding of the Court:
1. The prosecution failed to prove entrustment or dominion over the property in question. 2. No evidence of wrongful loss or gain was presented. 3. The accused's actions were a breach of duty, not criminal breach of trust. 4. No offense under Sections 409, 420, 465, or 471 IPC was established.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved entrustment or dominion over the property in question. 2. Whether there was evidence of wrongful loss or gain. 3. Whether the accused's actions constituted criminal breach of trust. 4. Whether the accused committed any offense under Sections 409, 420, 465, or 471 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Entrustment requires proof of a fiduciary relationship and handing over of property or dominion over property. 2. Criminal breach of trust requires proof of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property, or dishonest use or disposal of property. 3. Cheating requires proof of deception, inducement, and damage or harm caused to the person deceived. 4. Forgery requires proof of fraudulent use of a forged document as genuine, knowledge or reason to believe the document is forged, and wrongful loss or gain caused to any person.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges under Sections 409, 420, 465, and 471 IPC.
A.S.Nehra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi, vide which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 409, 465, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
3. In the year 1971-72 Prem Singh accused was posted as Superintendent of Rural Artisan Training Centre, Hansi, Surender Kumar accused was supervisor, Sham Lal accused was Cashier and Naresh Chander accused was storekeeper. The broad allegations of the prosecution are that some anonymous application was made against the accused alleging that they had mis-appropriated large amount of Government money by falsification and manipulation of various documents and accounts. The matter was initially enquired into by the departmental accounts officer on whose report the matter was referred and entrusted to the vigilance department for necessary action and enquiry. Consequently, Inspector Chander Bhan investigated the case and submitted his report Ex.PW 19/A to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hissar. The report of the Vigilance Inspector revealed that a total sum of Rs. 2,36,619.50 paise was embezzled by the accused. According to the report of Chander Bhan, Inspector, Ex. PW 19/A, the above mentioned amount was mis-appropriated and embezzled by the accused persons. It was further revealed during the course of enquiry that the accused used to purchase certain textile goods from private sources and supplied them to different departments as a product of Rural Artisan Training Centre on false bills and receipts in the name of rural Artisan Training Centre, Hansi.
4. For the just appreciation of the facts of the case letter Ex. PW 4/1 is material to be mentioned here and in view of the said letter Rural Artisan Training Centre, Hansi was to supply the textile and other goods which were manufactured at the various production wings in Rural Artisan Training Centre situated at Sohna, Hansi, Kaithal and Mohindergarh. The wing at Hansi used to manufacture the following goods :-
(i) Textile goods such as bed cover, long cloth, table covers, dusters, curtain cloth, towels, tukish towels etc.
(ii) Leather goods,
(iii) Agriculture implements such as kassies and khurpas etc.
5. In view of directions in the said letter the Superintendent was asked to comply with the orders received from various departments and in case they were not in a position to supply the same, the non-compliance certificate was to be issued to the indenting officers within 7 days of the receipt of the indents.
6. According to the prosecution accused Prem Singh, Superintendent in the wing Rural Artisan Training Centre at Hansi supplied various goods to various departments in contravention with the above said directions contained in letter Ex. PW 4/1 and supplied the goods to the department after procuring them from the private sources. Therefore, according to the prosecution, his act was illegal and unwarranted. The other accused persons had also allegedly participated is falsification of accounts, therefore, they were also joined in the investigation.
7. Originally F.I.R. No. 42 dated 23.2.1974 under Sections 420/409/467/468/471 IPC and Section 5(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on the letter Ex. PW 19/B.No. 1052 dated 5.2.1974. The case was then investigated by the investigating Agency and on completion of the investigation a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and 15 separate challans were prepared against the accused persons under Sections 409/465/471/420/168 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 5(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act and the same were forwarded to the Court for trial of the accused persons.
8. After supplying the necessary copies of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the accused persons were charge sheeted under Sections 409/465/471/420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
