The judgment establishes the importance of the essential ingredients of the offense of criminal breach of trust under section 405, the limitations under section 468 Cr.PC, and the limited scope of quashing criminal prosecution under section 482 Cr.PC.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two petitions, for quashing the impugned orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, have been extracted from (1)CRM No.M-44541 of 2007 (for brevity “1st case”) titled as

“Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.” in this context.

2. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petitions and emanating from the record, is that the Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short “the PUNSUP”) desired to get the paddy milled into rice from different rice shellers, as per clause 10 of the Amended Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983. An agreement (Annexure P1) was executed between the PUNSUP and M/s S.M.Rice and General Mills of the petitioner (in 1st case). The similar agreement was also executed between the PUNSUP and petitioner Kewal Krishan Jindal (in CRM No.M-58222 of 2004) (in short “2nd case”). In pursuance of the agreement, 61005 bags of A-class quality paddy, weighing 30502.50 quintals was entrusted to the firm of petitioner (in 1st case). Similarly, the paddy, worth ` 1,82,00,000/- was entrusted to the firm of the petitioner (in 2nd case), for de-husking into rice. The firms acknowledged the receipt of stock and were required to return the rice of the same quality to PUNSUP within the stipulated period. Instead of returning the A-class quality rice of the required quantity, the indicated firms returned a very less quantity (weight) of rice, that too, of very inferior quality. In this manner, they were stated to have cheated and misappropriated the entrusted paddy by PUNSUP, worth many crores of rupees, for their own gains. The District Manager of PUNSUP reported the misappropriation to the Deputy Commissioner, who further brought to the notice of Senior Superintendent of Police. The matter was investigated and the misappropriation was detected in this relevant connection.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners-accused have misappropriated the entrusted paddy. They did not return the A-class quality rice and returned a very less quantity (weight) of rice of inferior quality. Thus, they have committed the criminal breach of trust and cheated the PUNSUP. In the background of these allegations, criminal cases were registered against the petitioner-firms and other similar firms, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 34, 120-B IPC and section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by virtue of FIRs in question by the police of Police Station Punjab Vigilance Bureau in the manner described hereinabove. The cases were duly investigated and the oral as well as documentary evidence was collected. After the completion of investigation, the concerned police submitted the challans/final police reports u/s 173 Cr.PC against the accused for trial.

4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Chief Judicial Magistrate negatived the contentions of petitioners-accused, by way of detailed order dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure P4) and charge sheeted them (in 1st case) for the commission of offences punishable under sections 409 and 406 IPC, vide separate charge sheet of even date. The revision petition (Annexure P5) filed by petitioner-accused against the order (Annexure P4) was dismissed as well, by the revisional Court, by means of impugned order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure P6). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that although the trial Magistrate did not frame the charges in the 2nd case at the first instance, but in the wake of revision petition by the PUNSUP, the revisional Co