Partnership does not imply individual liability for breach of trust without direct evidence of involvement in the crime.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal captioned above, all seven accused who were prosecuted for misappropriating 447 quintals and 5 kgs 900 grams of rice, which was entrusted to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) for custom milling as per the agreement dated 12.10.1983, Ex.PW3/A which was misappropriated and a loss of Rs.1,33,028.99 paise was caused to PUNSUP by not returning the rice, the State had come before this Court seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC, which was granted; hence, this appeal.

2. Vide judgment dated 16.10.2002 passed in CRA-S-28-DB-1991, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the present appeal. Feeling aggrieved, State filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which granted Special Leave to Appeal and vide judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1069 of 2004 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to this Court for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to definition of breach of trust and some judicial precedents i.e. Rajesh Bajaj v/s State NCT of Delhi 1999(3) SCC 259 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v/s Rajesh Aggarwal and others 1999(8) SCC 686 . Thus, Hon’ble Apex Court was not convinced of dismissing the appeal in summary manner and remanded the matter to be decided fresh.

3. After that, notices were issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.03.2011. Vide judgment dated 09.08.2012 the matter was referred to a larger Bench on the proposition of law on the simultaneous initiation of civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. Vide judgment dated 25.01.2013 passed by the then Division Bench of this Court, reference was answered. It would be appropriate to refer to point no. viii of the said judgment which reads as follows:

“(viii) To sum up and reiterate, we hold that the appellant or the petitioner-rice millers cannot seek quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them under Sections 405, 406 or 415 IPC or other related provisions of IPC only on the ground that they have entered into an agreement with one or the other procuring agencies or that non-delivery, shortage of delivery or delivery of poor quality of rice by them, gives rise to civil liability for which the complainant-procuring agencies have got an efficacious remedy by invoking the arbitration clause and seeking consequential recovery. However, if the investigation report, even on its acceptance in entirety, does not disclose prima-facie ingredients of any offence under the penal law(s), the aggrieved party is at liberty to raise such a plea before an appropriate forum as per the conclusions summarised above”

4. Although three matters were listed together, but were consolidated on the question of law, which stands answered as extracted above and as such there is no reason to pass a common judgment. Consequently, this Court will adjudicate this appeal matter separately.

5. This appeal was filed in this Court three and a half decades ago. As of this date, out of the seven accused, five have passed away, and only the accused, A-4 Ram Niwas and A-7 Murli Manohar are alive. The appeals regarding the other five have already been abated. Thus, this Court will confine itself to the evidence available only against Ram Niwas, and the evidence relevant to such an adjudication, and not against anyone else.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

7. The case of the prosecution was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by the District Manager of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to state that PUNSUP refers to a Punjab G