Entrustment is given some special status in Criminal Breach of Trust as the accused is entrusted with control over the property. But there is a major line which is making Criminal Misappropriation different from Criminal Breach of Trust i.e. Criminal Breach of Trust is simply ‘Dishonest Intension’ or ‘Conversion of property for own use’ which is Criminal Misappropriation u/s 403. Dishonesty is as defined in section 24 IPC, causing wrongful gain or loss, which again is defined in section 23 IPC. It is very important for a criminal breach of trust that the breach is done with dishonest intention. Misappropriate use of the entrusted property in a way that the property is converted by the accused for his use.Key elements to prove Criminal Breach of trust can be determined as: Section 405 clearly construes the definition of Criminal Breach of trust which means dishonest use or disposition of one’s property which he has given to another in trust. ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONSĬriminal Breach of trust under Indian Penal Code is explained in Section 405-409. There are many people around us who can act this act of breach of trust, some are under an obligation to act under some contract and take advantage of their position to perform breach of trust. The other person thereafter does some act so as to breach his trust, this breach of trust is an offence and is punishable. when a person puts his trust on another in furtherance that he transfers possession of his property. violation of trust is criminalized by IPC in order to protect the interest of the owner of the property. It held that whether an offence has been committed under this act will be decisive based on the fact of how the word property has been interpreted.Breach of trust is said to be when a trustee distributes trust assets to a beneficiary to someone who is not entitled to them. Dalmia v Delhi Administration The word property was to be interpreted in a wider sense. The court came to the conclusion that immovable property does not fall under the definition and under the word ‘properly’ mentioned in the section. It can be clearly inferred from the wording of section 405, which is similar to Section 403 and includes only movable property. The complainant was not able to prove the entrustment of property within Section 405. : In this case, the learned magistrate gave a clarification that Section 405 and Section 406 only referred to movable property, but immovable property cannot be brought within the purview of Section 405. Tempton Jahangir Frazer v Ranchhoddas Khimji Asher and ors. So, the accused taking money amounts to trust and returning less money amounts to a breach of trust and thus liable to be punished. In the case of State of UP v Babu Ram, the accused is a police constable, when he went for investigation to a village, he found a person running hurriedly to the field, and searched him and found him with a bund of currency notes which was ceased by the police officer and later returned but Rs.The court dishonestly as the misappropriation must be done dishonestly. Sohan Lal v Emperor, this is a case of dishonest misappropriation of property for the own use, Dishonesty is defined in Section 24 and 23 as intentional causing of wrongful gain or loss to the other person.It further helps define the word entrustment as when a person is entitled to hold a property, whereas the owner still remains the same to whom the property belongs. The court held that this amounts to criminal breach of trust. Some portion of cement received was diverted towards a godown. Jaswantlal v State, in this case, the state prima facie sold cement only on the condition that it will be used for the purpose of construction work only.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |