MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHABIR Parshad has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the charges framed against him under sections 406, 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, vide impugned order dated May 21, 1984.

(2.) A challan under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner was presented by the police before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, on the allegations that the District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, had entrusted palm oil tins to him for distribution to the ration card holders at controlled rates, but instead of distributing the oil tins to the ration card holders the petitioner sold the oil in black market and forged thumb impressions and signatures of the card holders in the Distribution Register of sale kept by him. During investigation, the Distribution Register was taken into possession by the police. The Director, Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban, after comparisons, reported that the signatures and the thumb impressions on the register did not tally with the thumb impressions and signatures of the card-holders.

(3.) AT the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the prosecution allegations no case under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner. This contention is not devoid of merit. Main ingredient of an offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is that the accused has committed breach of trust. In other words he should have misappropriated the property entrusted to him. In the present case the element of entrustment is missing. It is admitted that by an agreement of distribution of palm oil, the District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, sold the oil to the petitioner and not merely entrusted it to him. Thus, by virtue of the said agreement the petitioner cannot be regarded as an agent of the Government in respect of the oil purchased by him under the agreement. No doubt, the petitioner was required to sell the oil to the ration card-holders in accordance with the agreement of distribution, but the violation of the terms of the agreement did not amount to criminal breach of trust. The property in the oil had passed to the petitioner and he did not hold the same in trust for the Government. That being so, there was no criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405, Indian Penal Code, and as such the petitioner cannot be considered to have committed an offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code.