Non-payment of debt does not constitute criminal breach of trust under IPC unless there is clear evidence of property entrustment.

reserved on :

25 /01/2024 Judgment delivered on :08/04/2024  Udhoram, S/o Dhundhwa Sahu, Aged About 52 Years, Agriculturist, Village Nawagaon, Police Station and Tah.- Than Khamahriya, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant Versus

1. Sahid Khan, S/o Kadir Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Occupation- Business, R/o Ward No. 14, P.S.- Khamahriya, Police Station and Tah. Than Khamahriya, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment

1. This acquittal appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 44/2017 whereby the said Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 406 of IPC quashing the orders dated 08.09.2017 & 21.09.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent is a businessman and he purchased soyabean from the appellant/complainant in credit and assured the appellant/ complainant that he will pay the amount of purchased soyabean as soon as complainant came to his village Than Khamahriya.

The complainant several times went to the accused for receiving the payment but accused paid him only Rs. 50,000/- in the month of March and again reassured the complainant/appellant that the remaining amount of Rs. 3,09,681/- will be given by him but he never paid the said remaining amount. On the basis of said incident, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant/appellant to the police station- Khamahriya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) against the respondent but no any action against the accused/respondent was taken by the police authorities. Thereafter, the appellant filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) and prayed that the respondent may be convicted under Sections 406 , 409 & 420 of IPC . The trial Court having recorded primary evidence of the complainant-Udhoram and his witnesses, took cognizance of offence under Section 406 of IPC against the respondent/accused. Thereafter, evidence of the witnesses were recorded before framing of charge and vide order dated 21.09.2017, the trial Court framed charge under Section 406 of IPC against the respondent/accused. The respondent challenged the orders dated 08.09.2017 and 21.09.2017 passed by the learned trial Court by filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) and the said revision was allowed vide order dated 07.04.2018 quashing the said orders passed by the learned trial Court and respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 406 of IPC . Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned revisional Court quashing the charge framed under Section 406 of IPC by the trial Court is illegal. Learned revisional Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the complainant. Learned trial Court rightly framed the charge under Section 406 of IPC but the learned revisional Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence and recorded the finding which is not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the revisional Court is bad in law as well as facts. Th