Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 596
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.P.Chowdhri and N.K.Kapoor JJ.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Bhim Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 20 of 1984,
Decided On : JULY 13, 1991
A person who is entrusted with property and who dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use is guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SECTION 408 IPC - INTERPRETATION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - TRUST - DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION - CONVICTION - SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a cashier of a cooperative society, was charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC for misappropriating Rs. 1,442.55P from the society's funds. The prosecution alleged that the accused had received the money from the bank as a loan and had subsequently misappropriated it, while the accused denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had been entrusted with the money and had subsequently misappropriated it, thereby making him liable for an offence under Section 408 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused was entrusted with the money in question. 2. Whether the accused had misappropriated the money. 3. Whether the accused was guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused was entrusted with the money by virtue of his position as cashier of the society and that he had misappropriated the money by failing to account for it. The court rejected the accused's argument that he was not liable for criminal breach of trust because the amount due had become time-barred, holding that the accused's criminal liability was not extinguished by the passage of time.
Final Decision: The court convicted the accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 IPC and sentenced him to two years' probation, subject to furnishing a bond for Rs. 5,000/- and a like surety. The court also directed the accused to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation to the complainant society.
N.K.Kapoor, J.
1. State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh dated 27.4.1983 whereby the accused was ordered to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an amount of Rs. 1,442.55P was due from Bhim Singh accused cashier of Noona Majra Agricultural Co-operative Society. This amount was detected by inspector Co-operative Societies Bahadurgarh while checking the record of the society since the signatures of Bhim Singh Ex. Cashier were found in the Rokar Bahi page No. 14. The inspector Co-operative Societies gave this information to the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Rohtak. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. On the information given by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak F.I.R. No. 195 dated 7.6.1979 under Section 409 I.P.C. was registered. The accused was arrested and on completion of necessary investigation he was challaned under Section 409 I.P.C.
3. Though initially, the challan was put under Section 409 I.P.C. but on consideration of documents, prima facie a case under Section 408 I.P.C. was found made against the accused and he was charged accordingly.
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Balbir Singh P.W. 1, Yog Raj P.W. 2, Rattan Singh P.W. 3, Sultan Singh P.W. 4, Umed Singh P.W. 5, Raja Ram ASI P.W. 6, Mehtab Singh P.W. 7, Inspector Dharambir P.W. 8, Kedar Nath Handwriting-Expert P.W. 9 and Duggar Ram P.W. 10. All these witnesses supported the version of the prosecution in all its material particulars.
5. The accused in its statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the factum of having received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and its subsequent misappropriation but admitted the fact that he had been appointed Cashier of the Society. The accused examined one Rattan Singh D.W. 1 in his defence.
6. The sole point for consideration is as to,whether any amount as alleged was entrusted to the accused and subsequently misappropriated, thus making him liable for an offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406/408 I.P.C. or not.
7. To prove this, the prosecution has led oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate its charge. It is proved on record that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was given by the Bank as a loan which finds duly credited in the Ledger Register Ex. P2 at page 15 of the Ledger Book. This entry is dated 15.4.1965. To the similar effect is the entry in the Cash Book Ex. P. A. showing a balance of Rs. 1,442. 55P which also bears the signatures of the accused. This entry is dated 6.2.1969. These entries are otherwise also proved by the statements of P.W. 1 Balbir Singh and P.W. 5 Umed Singh Sub-Inspector of the Co-operative Society. The prosecution with a view to, prove that entry showing a balance of Rs. 1,442.55P which bears the signatures of the accused examined PW9 Kedar Nath who has already deposed that the disputed signatures tally with the specimen signatures. His report is Ex. P.W. 6/B. So on perusal of the entries in the Ledger Register and the Cash Book, it becomes quite clear that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was received from the Bank and out of this, a balance amount of Rs. 1,442.55P was shown by the accused as cash in hand. Since the accused was the Cashier of the Society, it can be safely said that this money was in his possession or under his control and this way, such a person would be deemed to be a trustee. There is no evidence on record by which it can be inferred that an amount of Rs. 1,442.55P was in any manner spent or given to any other member. The conclusion of the Magistrate that the accused cannot be held to have been entrusted with this amount is wholly wrong and is not justifiable on facts and law. Similarly, the observation of the Magistrate that the accused was a member of the Society and not its Cashier is contrary to the record as observed in t
