The court emphasized the importance of precise framing of charges and held that the charge must specify the exact offence for which the accused is tried, allowing the accused to prepare their defense in advance.

JUDGMENT :

1. The revisional powers of this Court under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code are invoked assailing the order of framing of charge dated 4-7-2017 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj Distt. Vidisha in S.T. No. 43/2017 against the petitioner under sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold submissions; (i) The allegations contained in the charge-sheet do not disclose presence of essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under section 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (ii) Since petitioner is the owner of the warehouse, the charge under section 409 of Indian Penal Code which does not relate to a warehouse keeper cannot be framed against the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner however can be charged under section 407 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that 50 individuals who were farmers lodged a complaint with the police Station, Sironj Distt Vidisha vide Crime No. 144/2015 on 14-5-2015 alleging that they had entrusted their food-grains of different variety, quantity and value as detailed in the FIR with the petitioner by keeping the same in his godown on certain agreed charges, for which a receipt duly signed by the petitioner was issued which was pledged by them with respective banks as security for loan borrowed by those persons. It is further submitted that the principal amount of loan along with the interest was duly repaid to the bank and when they approached the warehouse to get possession of their foodgrains, they found that their food grains were missing which impelled them to lodge the FIR alleging breach of trust and cheating on the part of the petitioner. Prosecution conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet containing statements of various complainants, which were implicative in nature qua the petitioner.

5. At the very outset, it requires to be seen whether at this stage of framing of charge, prima facie offence exists for satisfying the essential ingredients constituting the offences alleged.

5.1 The offence of breach of trust is defined under section 405 of Indian Penal Code which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference :

405. Criminal breach of trust. — Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Explanation 2. — A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

5.2 From the above, it is evident that the essential ingredients for constituting offence of breach of trust is entrustment of property, its dishonest misappropriation leading to loss.

5.3 The factum of entrustment of food grains is duly supported by various statements of complainants and as well as the receipts issued by the petitioner and therefore the first ingredient of entrustment stands satisfied.

5.4 Thereafte