Punishment for criminal breach of trust

Section 406, Syn. 68

2851

record, the Court has come to the conclusion that the complaint and the evidence adduced by the parties
does not constitute the offences punishable under sections 498 - A and 406 of the IPC. Accordingly, it has
dismissed the complaint. The revisional Court concurred with the order of the Magistrate. But the High
Court, by a cryptic order, sent back the file for fresh disposal. It is a settled position of law that an order
which does not contain any reason, is no order in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in
accordance with the law.1614 In another case under sections 498A and 406 IPC, the Supreme Court held
that there can be no doubt that the allegations made are extremely wild and disgusting. However, how far
those allegations can be used to meet the requirements for the offence under section 406 IPC is a moot
question. The court held that for obvious reasons, they will not go into that exercise. Whatever is the form
in which the allegations under section 406 IPC are made, the fact of the matter is that there is an F.I.R. and
the Court concerned has taken cognizance thereof. The Supreme Court declined to quash the F.I.R. relating
to section 406 IPC.1615
SYN. 68
68. Venue of trial : criminal breach of trust

68. Venue of trial : criminal breach of trust.—Three distinct venue for the trial of criminal breach of
trust are prescribed by section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which stands as follows:
Section 181. (4). Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired
into or tried by a Court, within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or any part of the property
which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the
accused person.
Thus, the offence of criminal breach of trust can be tried at three places, namely, at the place where the
property was received, at the place where the property was retained by the accused or at the place where the
offence was committed and under section 405 IPC, the offence can be committed at a place where the accused,
according to the contract entered by him, fails to deposit the money and render accounts, and consequently, the
Court at that place is fully competent to try the case.1616

In view of section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when an act is an offence by reason of
anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, such a thing has been done or such consequence has
ensued. The word “consequence” in section 179, CrPC does not include all the possible results of an act,
but is restricted in its scope to a certain specified results; those are the results specified in the provision of
the law, making the act an offence. The offence of criminal breach of trust is complete with the act of
conversion and the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. That intention can only be formed or
at least can only be proved to have been formed at the place where the conversion takes place. For the
purposes of section 179, CrPC, it is immaterial where the wrongful loss actually takes place, and indeed
whether any such loss actually does take place.1617
The complainant alleged that her father-in-law and husband had ill-treated her for non-fulfilling of
dowry demand and had also retained her stridhan. There was no averment as to the entrustment of any kind
of property by the complainant to the accused persons and its consequent misappropriation by them. In the
charge- sheet, it was mentioned that the complainant had refused to take back the articles when offered by
the investigating officer. The charge against the accused persons under section 406 IPC was quashed.
Similarly, charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all, excepting the accused
husband were also quashed.1618
The offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by the Court,
within whose jurisdiction, any of the following five facts took place, namely —
1614. Pankaj Garg v Meenu Garg, (2013) 3 SCC 246 : JT 2013 (2) SC 626; K. Neelaveni v State Rep. by Inspector of
Police, AIR 2010 SC 3191 : (2010) 11 SCC 607- The husband married another lady and a girl child was born from
the second marriage- Offence under section 494 and section 406 IPC prima facie made out; Neelu Chopra v Bharti,
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950- allegations do not constitute the offences, proceedings quashed. See also Bhushan
Kumar Meen v State of Punjab, (2011) 8 SCC 438 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 529; Preeti Gupta v State, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : AIR 2010 SC 3363.
1615. Vijeta Gajra v State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 2712 : (2010) 11 SCC 618.
1616. Brij Kishore v Chandrika Prasad, AIR 1936 Oudh 329 : 27 CrLJ 322 : 1936 Oudh WN 212.
1617. Banerji v Potnis, AIR 1924 Nag 253 : 25 CrLJ 922.
1618. Onkar Nath Mishra v State (NCT of Delhi), 2008 CrLJ 1391 (SC) : 2007 (13) SCR 716 : 2008 (2) SCC 561 : 2008 (1)
JT 20.