INTRODUCTION
Anyone who, while in possession of property or exercising dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates, converts it for his own use, uses it or disposes of it in violation of a legal order dictating how the trust is to be fulfilled, or of an express or implied legal agreement he has made regarding the fulfillment of the trust, or wilfully permits another person to do so, commits “criminal” behavior. Anytime someone is trusted with a piece of property, that person has a responsibility to treat it with the utmost good faith and refrain from using it for personal gain.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Chapter 17 (XVII), deals with the crucial clause known as “Criminal Breach of Trust.” The goal of Section 405 of the IPC, 1860 is to precisely define what constitutes “Criminal Breach of Trust.” Moreover, Section 406 specifies the penalty for a criminal breach of trust, which may be up to three years in jail, a fine, or both.
The purpose of this study is to investigate how the supreme and high courts, in their numerous judgements, have embraced the notion of My project was split into four basic areas by Live:
1. Define Criminal Breach Of Trust.
2. Assurance
3. possession
4. Misappropriation of Property
Criminal: A criminal is anything that is bad, a crime, or something that is illegal.
Breach: A breach is described as breaching an agreement, violating rules and regulations, or breaking a rule.
Trust may be described as a fiduciary connection or a belief in something; it is to be honest and sincere. For example, consider the relationship between a master and a servant, or a barrister and a client.
Criminal Breach of Trust Components
Entrustment of assets ‘Dishonest’ misappropriation or conversion of property are two fundamental aspects of criminal breach of trust.
Such entrustment must be in good faith.
Any order or manner provided by law for discharging the trust, or any legal contract signed for the discharge of trust, shall be violated.
Explanation required under Section 405 of the IPC
The Indian Criminal Code, 1860 provides two justifications under Section 405, namely:
According to the first explanation, if an employer withholds an employee’s contribution from pay that is a portion of the employee’s provident fund or family pension fund, it will be seen as an entrustment of that amount withheld.
Criminal Trust Breach Sentence
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, imposes penalties for the criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust is punishable by either type of imprisonment for a time that may not exceed three years, a fine, or both, according to Section 406.
After the violation of section 405 has been established, the offender will be subject to IPC section 406 punishment. The Indian Criminal Code’s Sections 407 to 409 deal with various forms of criminal breach of trust and hence have various penalties. Criminal breach of trust by a carrier, etc., is addressed in Section 407, which also lays forth a sentence that might last up to seven years. According to Section 407, “Anyone commits criminal breach of trust with respect to property while acting in the capacity of a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper will be punished with imprisonment of either sort for a time which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
In a similar fashion, Section 408 of the IPC, which addresses criminal breaches of trust by clerks and servants, states that: “Anyone, being a clerk or servant or hired as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any control over property, a fine in addition to receiving a punishment of 1*[life imprisonment] or imprisonment of either kind for a time that may last 10 years.
According to these sections, the maximum sentence for the crime of criminal breach of trust is 10 years in prison and a fine.
To qualify as an offense under this, property must be “entrusted” under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The term “entrustment” as employed in this Part is nebulous and broad enough to cover further elements. Consequently, entrustment includes any employee holding a position of trust, including clerks, servants, executives, agents, and others.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in Som Narth Puri v. the State of Rajasthan (1972) that the word “entrustment” is broad enough to cover any things that are voluntarily transferred for a particular goal or motivation. Additionally, as stated in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramode Mategaonkar, entrustment need not only be spoken but may also be implied.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in the case of Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. the State of Maharashtra (1980) that the term dominion refers to control over property. As a result, the director of a firm acting as a trustee or holder of assets has control over the property.
Criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust
Criminal Betrayal of Trust
Misappropriation of Property
Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes criminal breach of trust a crime.
Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines criminal misappropriation.
Under criminal breach of trust, the property entrusted must have been transformed for personal use by the person to whom the item was committed.
Criminal misappropriation is a broader concept than criminal breach of trust. Under criminal misappropriation, the defaulter has been in any way in possession of the property.
A contractual trust is created when there has been a criminal breach of trust. Hence, a legal contract is established. Criminal misappropriation, however, does not establish a contractual relationship.
As a result, the individual with whom the property was entrusted dishonestly misappropriates it and transforms it for his or her personal use.
Under this, the property is not given to the offender; rather, this person acquires ownership of the property as a result of an accident or other cause, which he or she then converts for personal use. According to the Indian Criminal Code, criminal breach of trust carries a three-year jail sentence, a fine, or both. According to the Indian Criminal Code, illegal misappropriation carries a two-year jail sentence, a fine, or both.
Dominion implies having authority over the property. In the case of Shivnatrayan v. State of Maharashtra, it was determined that a corporate director held the status of a trustee and had dominion and control over the assets that had come into his possession.
Misappropriation
Dishonest appropriations of this section’s meaning. According to section 24 of the IPC, lying results in a person’s unjust gain or wrongful loss. Under section 23 of the IPC, the terms “wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” are defined. It is not sufficient to prove that the money has not been accounted for or has been handled improperly for it to be an offense. The accused’s dishonest use of the property for his personal benefit or another illegal use must be proven. For the accusation of criminal breach of trust to be proven, dishonest intent to misappropriate must be established. Intentional proof is challenging to demonstrate with direct evidence because it always involves the criminal mentality or mens rea of the individual. The cursed person in Krishan Kumar v. UOI worked as an assistant storekeeper at the Central Tractor Organization (CTO) in Delhi. His job included, among other things, taking possession of a cargo of products for CTO that had been arrived by train. A specific wagonload of iron and steel that belonged to the accused was received from Tata Iron and Steel Co. at Tatanagar; nevertheless, the commodities were not delivered to the CTO. The accused first claimed that the commodities had been cleared when questioned, but afterwards claimed that he had transported the goods to a different railway siding where they were not. The accused’s defense explanation was disproved as untrue. Unfortunately, the prosecution was unable to prove how precisely the commodities were taken and for what purpose they were used. In this situation, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not always essential to demonstrate how specifically the accused had handled or taken the possessions of his master. There is no concrete evidence of appropriation; the issue is one of intention. If the prosecution proves that the servant got the items and was required to account, the crime will be proven. and had not returned it to his lord. In this instance, it was decided that the prosecution had proven that the defendant had taken possession of the commodities and removed them from the train depot. That was enough to support a conviction in accordance with this provision. In a similar vein, it was determined in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay that while dishonest misappropriation or conversion may not typically be a matter of direct proof, when it is established that property has been entrusted to a person or has been under his dominion and he has provided a false justification for his failure to account for it, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may be easily drawn. The defendant in Surendra Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar had the safe’s keys in his hands. It was decided that the accused was responsible since only he had the safe’s keys, and until he could prove that he had given them to someone else, no one could enter the safe. Even a brief misappropriation might be reason for conviction under this clause, as was the case with criminal misappropriation.
IPC Section 406
The punishments for criminal breach of trust are outlined in Section 406 of the Indian Criminal Code (IPC), 1860. According to Section 406, anybody found guilty of a criminal breach of trust faces a sentence of up to three years in jail, a fine, or a combination of the two. The magistrate of the first class conducts an unusual trial for the criminal breach of trust offense. Moreover, it is a non-compoundable offense that is bailable.
CONCLUSION
Entrustment and dishonest theft of the property are the two fundamental components of a criminal breach of trust, according to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Consequently, it is crucial that both requirements of the criminal breach of trust be met in order for the act to be considered an offense under Section 406 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860. In order to exert control over the property, the accused must be in a position where he has jurisdiction over it. Both moveable and immovable property are included in the definition of property. There must be evidence that the accused unlawfully or improperly used the property for his or her personal benefit. The intent to misappropriate must be established in order for a criminal breach of trust to stand. According to Section 406 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860, the penalty for criminal breach of trust is either imprisonment, which is punishable by a maximum sentence of three years, or a fine, or both, depending on the kind of offender.
REFRENCE
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
https://www.writinglaw.com/
https://abbasilegal.com/
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening