R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration

1963 SCR (1) 253 · AIR 1962 SC 1821

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeals Nos. 7 to 9 of 1961
Decided: 5 April 1962
Bench: Raghubar Dayal, S.K. Das, K. Subbarao (judgment by Raghubar Dayal, J.)
Citation: 1963 SCR (1) 253
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 SC 1821 (as printed in the judgment)
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 405 (criminal breach of trust) (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 316(1))
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent) (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 316(5))

Headnote

Criminal breach of trust · IPC s. 405 (BNS s. 316(1)) · IPC s. 409 (BNS s. 316(5)) · Meaning of property · Entrustment with dominion · Agent in the way of business

Held

We are of opinion that there is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to movable property only when it is used without any qualification in s. 405 or in other sections of the Indian Penal Code Whether the offence defined in a particular section of the Indian Penal Code can be committed in respect of any particular kind of property will depend not on the interpretation of the word 'property' but on the fact whether that particular kind of property can be subject to the acts covered by that section. [SCR p. 277]
One may have dominion over property but may not exercise any power which he could exercise with respect to it. Non-exercise of the power will not make the dominion entrusted to him, nugatory. [SCR p. 281]
We are therefore of opinion that Dalmia and Chokhani were entrusted with the dominion over the funds of the Bharat Insurance Company in the Banks. [SCR p. 289]
This may be so, but Chokhani [...] dominion over the funds on account of Raghunath Rai's signing blank cheques. The signing of the blank cheques merely facilitated Chokhani's committing breach of trust. [SCR p. 291]
What s. 409 I.P.C. requires is that the person alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust with respect to any property be entrusted with that property or with dominion over that property in the way of his business as an agent. The expression in the way of his business' means that the property is entrusted to him in the ordinary course of his duty or habitual occupation or profession or trade'. He should get the entrustment or dominion in his capacity as agent. [SCR p. 298]
A person may be an agent of another for some purpose and if he is entrusted with property not in connection with that purpose but for another purpose, that entrustment will not be entrustment for the purposes of S. 409 I.P.C. if any breach of trust is committed by that person. [SCR p. 298]

Result

We therefore dismiss these appeals. [SCR p. 404]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: the Court's reading that 'property' in s. 405 is wider than 'movable property' is cited in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal (2022).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-316/01 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.