Summary
The appellant who was an employee of the Indian Airlines Corporation was convicted under s. 409, Penal Code, and section 5(2) read with section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant's duty was to make reservations for the passengers. The practice was that whenever the quota was full intending travellers were re-- quired to pay trunk telephone charges for enabling the Corporation to obtain release of seats from quotas allotted to other centers. The appellant who was incharge of this arrangement, it was alleged, collected Rs. 184.90 towards trunk telephones charges but actually deposited with the corporation only a sum of Rs. 44.90 and misappropriated the balance. The modus operandi, it was alleged, was that he would demand a higher, amount for Trunk Call charges than was likely to be incurred and he would issue a correct receipt for this amount on behalf of the corporation but after making the trunk call, he would alter the counterfoil with the actual amount of trunk call charges. In the appeal to this Court it was urged that since the prosecution case as disclosed by the evidence was that the appellant had collected excess charges representing them to be actual charges for trunk calls and not that any excess over the actual charges would be returned to the appellant he could not be-convicted either under s. 5(2) read with 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under s. 409 penal code, because, the important ingredient, viz., entrustment of the amount was absent.
Dismissing the appeal,HELD : (i) The expression, 'entrusted in section 409 is used in a wide sense and includes all cases in which property is voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed of contrary to the terms on which possession has been handed over. As long as the accused is given possession of property for a specific purpose or to deal with it in a particular manner, the ownership being in some person other than the accused, he can be said to be entrusted with that property to be applied in accordance with the terms of entrustment and for the benefit of the owner. It may be that a person to whom the property is handed over may 'cc an agent of the person to whom it is entrusted or to whom it may belong in which case, if the agent who comes into possession of it on behalf of his principal, fraudulently misappropriates the property, he is nonetheless guilty of criminal breach of trust, because, as an agent he is entrusted with it. A person authorized to collect moneys on behalf of another is entrusted with the money when the amounts are paid to him, and though the person paying may no longer have any proprietary interest, nonetheless, the person on whose behalf it was collected become the owner as soon as the amount is handed over to the person so authorized to collect on his behalf. [502 D]498 The State v. Dahyalal Dalpatram, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 53; In re: Ram Soonder Poddar & Ors. 1878 (2) Cal. L.R. 515; In re : Ramappa, (1911) 22 M.L.J. 112; in re : Venkata Raghunatha Sastri, (1923)45 M.L.J. 133 and the, Crown Prosecutor v. J.Mclyer and K. S. Narasimhachari, 69 M.L.J. 681, referred to.(ii)In the present case the amounts for trunk call charges were demanded on behalf of the Corporation and were paid to the Corporation. The receipts in respect of the sums, were given on behalf of the Corporation and it would be the Corporation that would be liable directly to ,the person who had paid this amount, if no trunk calls were made, or any excess over the actual amount of the trunk call charges was charged by it. The amount was not paid by passengers to the accused as such but to the corporation and as soon as the receipt for the amount actually received from the passengers was given by the accused on behalf of the corporation, he was entrusted with that amount. His subsequent con.duct in falsifying the counterfoils and fraudulently misappropriating the amount would make him guilty of criminal breach of trust under s. 409 I.P.C., as also under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) of the Act. [604 E-H]See the full content of this document
Extract
Som Narth Puri VS. The State Of Rajasthan
PETITIONER: SOM NARTH PURI Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHANDATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1972BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHANBENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHANSHELAT, J.M.KHANNA, HANS RAJCITATION: 1972 AIR 1490 1972 SCR (3) 497 1972 SCC (1) 630CITATOR INFO : APR 1972 SC2522 (8)R 1974 SC 794 (14)ACT: Penal Code, Indian (45 of 1860)--Section 405, 409--Criminal Breach of Trust--'Entrusted,' meaning.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1969.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1969 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1966.A. S. R. Chari and S. B. Wad, for the appellant.K. B. Mehta, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The accused was initially charged on three counts, firstly, under section 5(2) read with section 5(...
See the full content of this document