RAHUL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid applications arise out of same Case Crime and are between the same parties hence they are being decided by a common order.

(2.) It is contended that no offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, IPC is made out and hence the proceedings pending against the applicants and the order issuing non-bailable warrants be quashed being patently illegal and wrong.

(3.) From a perusal of the above provision, it may appear that for constituting the offence of criminal breach of trust, the necessary ingredients are that any property should either be entrusted to a person or the person be put in dominion over that property. The person so being entrusted with the property or having the dominion over it, must be shown to have misappropriated it or to have converted that property to his own use or has dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do.