The Supreme Court has held that unless entrustment of the property with the accused is established, offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC will not be attracted.
The Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that sine qua non for attracting Section 405 IPC was the entrustment of the property with the accused persons.
The petition was filed against Bombay High Court judgement in exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC for having committed offences under Section 285, 406, 420 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC.
The respondent-company has floated a tender inviting bids for recycling of plastics. Tender was passed in favour of the petitioner. The present petition concerns this. In this case, the petitioners had handed over waste plastic material to the concerned respondent and the respondent had processed the same and made the same over to the petitioners.
The High Court examined whether the materials on record indicated that ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners had even prima-facie been made out and cited State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC wherein directions to quash FIR have been laid out.
The Court agreed with High Court's view that Section 405 IPC would be attracted where the accused person had been entrusted with property, and such property had dishonestly been misappropriated or converted by him to his own use.
"The provision would also be attracted if the accused person dishonestly used or disposed of such property in violation of any direction of law. The High Court rightly found that the sine qua non for attracting the said provision was the entrustment of the property with the accused persons."
The Court after referring to definition of definition of cheating in Sections 416 and 420 IPC found that the operative words and the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security.
It also referred to Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & ANR., 2009 Latest Caselaw 524 SC to note that even prima-facie the basic ingredients of offence of cheating were absent.
The High Court further held that the essential requirement of Section 285 of IPC was that the accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life.
The Court opined that the act of recycling plastic waste material or supply of plastic waste material for recycling by the Petitioner No. 2 could not be said to be an act done with fire or any combustible matter.
"The act of the respondents of supplying material for testing and the recycling plant could not be said to be a negligent or rash act done to endanger human life. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence were absent."
In view of the above, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned High Court judgement.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
