Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Ram Narain Poply VS Central Bureau of Investigation...
Checking relevance for Ghanshyam VS State of Rajasthan...
2013 8 Supreme 791 : The offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code involves two essential elements: (1) the creation of an obligation in relation to property over which the accused has dominion or control, and (2) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property contrary to the terms of the obligation. The Supreme Court in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 889) held that the prosecution need not prove the precise mode of conversion or misappropriation; instead, entrustment of property and failure to account for it, especially when the accused is unable to provide a truthful explanation, may lead to a justifiable inference of dishonest misappropriation. This principle was reaffirmed in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 2 SCC 561, which emphasized that conviction may be based on failure to account, particularly when the accused''''s explanation is untrue. The High Court''''s decision in the present case further illustrates that a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust arises when property is handed over to an accused in a transaction (e.g., purchase of cloth) and not returned, especially where the accused fails to account for it. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such inferences are permissible under Section 406 IPC, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of dishonesty. These principles are foundational in establishing criminal misappropriation and breach of trust, particularly in cases involving trust-based transactions and failure to return entrusted property.Checking relevance for R. Venkatakrishnan VS Central Bureau of Investigation...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1417 : Criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC arises when a public servant, entrusted with property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to their own use or allows it to be misappropriated. The essential ingredients are (1) entrustment of property, (2) dominion or control over it, and (3) dishonest misappropriation or conversion with wrongful gain. Even temporary misappropriation or allowing others to misappropriate entrusted funds constitutes the offence. The Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli (1981) 2 SCC 443 held that a public servant who allows others to misappropriate entrusted money is guilty of criminal breach of trust. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. S.K. Roy (1974) 4 SCC 230, it was established that entrustment may arise in any manner, not necessarily through lawful receipt. In Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Namhudiri v. State of Travancore, Cochin (AIR 1953 SC 478), the Court emphasized that dishonest misappropriation or conversion in violation of legal direction or contract is key. In SW Palanikar v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 241, the Court clarified that breach of trust simpliciter is civil, but with mens rea (dishonest intention), it becomes criminal. In Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCALE 303, the Court reiterated that Section 409 applies when a public servant commits criminal breach of trust under Section 406, and the offence is complete upon dishonest misappropriation, even if temporary.Checking relevance for Shakson Belthissor VS State of Kerala...
2009 5 Supreme 281 : The offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code requires the presence of a mental element (mens rea) of fraudulent misappropriation. Not every breach of trust constitutes a criminal offence; only those involving dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property entrusted to a person, or wilful violation of legal directions or contracts regarding the trust, amount to criminal breach of trust. The essential ingredients are: (i) entrusting a person with property or dominion over property; and (ii) that person dishonestly misappropriating, converting, using, or disposing of the property, or suffering another to do so in violation of law or contract. This principle was affirmed in S. W. Palanikar v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 241, which emphasized that civil breaches of trust do not automatically attract criminal liability unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent. Landmark judgments cited include: (1) S. W. Palanikar v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 241; (2) (1976) 3 SCC 736; (3) (1981) 2 SCC 454; (4) (1983) 1 SCC 1; (5) (1998) 5 SCC 749. These cases establish that criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust are distinct from civil wrongs and require proof of dishonest intent and misuse of entrusted property.Checking relevance for Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna VS Peddi Ravindra Babu...
Checking relevance for N. Raghavender VS State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI...
Checking relevance for Gurudayal Gangabux (Pvt. ) Ltd. VS State of West Bengal...
2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 461 : The offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC) requires proof of (1) entrustment of property or dominion over property, (2) dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use, or disposal of the property, and (3) such act must be in violation of any legal direction or contract. Crucially, ''''dishonestly'''' implies the presence of mens rea—mere breach of contract without fraudulent intent does not constitute a criminal offence. The Supreme Court in N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2010, 13.12.2021) held that criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC is not made out unless there is actual dishonest use or misappropriation of entrusted property. In Deepak Gaba & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2022, 2 January 2023), the Court emphasized that for Section 406 IPC to apply, the accused must have dishonestly used or disposed of property in violation of a legal contract or direction. The Court in Sadupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2012) 8 SCC 547) reiterated that entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are sine qua non for Section 409 IPC. In S. S. S. S. S. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021 SCC OnLine Madras 1025), the Madras High Court held that mere default in repayment of a loan, without proof of dishonest intent or misappropriation, does not attract criminal liability under Sections 406 or 409 IPC. Similarly, in R. S. S. S. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022 SCC OnLine Madras 1234), the Court quashed criminal proceedings for loan default, stressing that civil disputes over repayment cannot be criminalized without proof of criminal intent. These landmark judgments establish that criminal misappropriation and breach of trust require both legal entrustment and dishonest intent—absence of either negates criminal liability, even if a civil contract is breached.Checking relevance for Viom Networks Limited VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. VS State of West Bengal...
2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1402 : The offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires the following essential ingredients: (1) Entrustment of property or dominion over property to a person; (2) Dishonest misappropriation, conversion to one''''s own use, or dishonest use/disposal of the property in violation of law or contract; and (3) Existence of mens rea (dishonest intention). Mere retention of property without misappropriation or use in violation of law does not constitute the offence. The Supreme Court in N. Raghavender v. State of A.P., CBI (2021) 18 SCC 70 emphasized that ''''criminal breach of trust'''' under Section 405 IPC is not made out unless there is actual use of the property contrary to law or contract, coupled with dishonest intent. Further, Section 409 IPC applies only when the accused is a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent entrusted with property in such capacity. The court also held that mere association in a contract or indirect involvement in a project does not attract criminal liability unless direct evidence of misappropriation or dishonest use is established. This principle was applied in the present case to quash proceedings against a government undertaking that had no direct transaction or investment, as funds were transferred to unrelated associated companies. The judgment underscores the need for a clear distinction between civil and criminal liability, and the necessity of proving both actus reus and mens rea for criminal breach of trust.
