LexSOM NARTH PURI versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H SOM NARIB PURI l'. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN February 15, 1972 497 [J.M. SHELAT, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J Penal Code, Indian (45 of 1860)-Section 405, 409-Criminal Breach of Trust-'Entrusted,' ffleaning. The appellant who was an employee of the Indian Airlines Corpora- tion 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 e.ppzllanfs duty was to make reservations for the passengers. The pJ:ac- tice was that whenever the quota was full intending travellers were re- quired to pay trunk telephone charges for enabling the Corp<iration to obtain relc::r.se of seats from quotas 'lllotted to other centres. The appel- lant \vllc was incharge of this arrangem-ent, it was allt!ged, collected Rs. 184.90 towards trunk telephones charges but actually deposited with/ the corporation 9nJy a sum of Rs. 44.90 and misappropriated the balance. The 1nod11s operandi, it was alleged, was that he would demand a higher amoutli for Trunk Call charges than was Jik.ely to .be in<1Urred and be \vould isslJe a correct receipt for this amount on behalf of the corporation bnt aitor making the trunk call, he would alter the counterfoil with the octual amount of trunk call charges. In the appeal ,to this Court it was urge.ct 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 be could not be convicted either under s. 5(2) read with S(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or uud~r s. 409 penal code, because, the important ingredient, viz., enlhli;t- ment cf the amount was abs,ent. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The expression 'entrusted' in section 409 is used in a W.<le sense and inc\udes all cases in whic;b property is voluntarj!yJ1anded O'fr ior a specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed ·<>f contrary to the terms on which possession !)as been handed over. As long as tlr: accused is gh en possession of property for. a specific purpose or to deal with it in <: particular manner, the ownership being in some person other than the accmed, 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 tc an agent of the person to whom it .is entrusted or to whom it ma1• belong in which <)lse, if the ag:nt who comes into possession of it on behuif of his principal, fraudulently misaPPl'OPriates the property, he is nonetheless guilty of criminal, breach of trust, because, as an uent be ls enlru~ted with it. A person authorised· to collect moneys on behalf of •nother II entrusted with the money when the ..mounts are paid to him, and though the person paying may no longer have any 'Proprietary in· terest, nonetheless, the person on whose behalf it was collected become the owner as soon as the amount is handed ovrlr to the person so autho- rised to collect on his behalf. (502 DJ 4i18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. The State v. Dahyalal Da/patram, A.LR. 1960 Born. 53; Ir. re: Ram A Soonder Poddar & Ors. 1878 (2) Cal. LR. 515; In re: Ramappa, (1911) 22 M.LJ. 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 cjiarges were demanded on behalf of the Corporation and we"> paid to the Corporation. B .The receipts in respect of the sums were given on behalf of the Corpe· ration and it would be the Corporation th~t would b<> liable directly to the p<>rson who had paid this amoun4 if no trunk calls were made, or any excess over the actual amoun.t of the trunk calI charges was charged by it. The amount was not paid by passengers to the accused as f>uch but to thr~ corporation and as soon a~ the receipt for the amount actually re- ceived from the passengers was given by the ac'Cused on behalf of the corpoartion, he was .entrusted with that an1ount. His subsequent con- c duct in falsifying the counterfoils '3Dd fraudulently misappropriating tho.! JLmount 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(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.